PDA

View Full Version : All sounds nice but 1 thing remains to be fixed....


kafros
2nd Apr 2005, 05:53 PM
.....and that is:

How to get all Counter Strike players who are dug up behind boxes in the 2-3 poppular maps into this new game. I hust hate seeing all servers empty of players for UT2004 while CS servers are full.

The biggest strength (for me) of UT2004 is its deep gameplay but it is at the same time the greatest weakness (noob unfriendly). I dont want EPIC to change anything but I think that new players will not be able to come into a game that has:

1. 9 weapons with 2 firing modes each
2. advanced movement (double dodge + jump , wall jumps, etc...)
3. insane kills/hours rate (being a begginer and getting killed every 5 secs is no fun)


So if EPIC takes any feedback from this forum (polls?) I hope you all ask for this:

How to introduce the advanced aspects of the game while playing in SP, so that new players will be better prepared for on-line.

I like the gameplay suggestions in this forum. Keep producing them :)

Nemephosis
2nd Apr 2005, 06:08 PM
Why the hell do we want CS players playing this? If they can't handle weapons that do more than "shoot bullets", they deserve their "Gaming for Dummies".

Selerox
2nd Apr 2005, 07:07 PM
Some kind of tutorial system would be a very smart idea, and should be included in any demo as well. Something that goes over the basics, and allows players to learn enough of the "framework" of the game to at least get an idea of how to play. UT is a tough game to learn for a new player. It's much faster than most games out there and there's a lot to think about. A tutorial system can only help to ease new players into the game.

A simple series of well-made tutorial movies would be a great help. Below is a list (in no particular order) of tutorial movies I'd like to see included in the game, in addition to the gametype specific tutorials. All tutorials should be easily viewible via the in-game GUI so that they can be viewed at any time by a player. A synopsis in the game manual wouldn't hurt either, but a full set of tutorials in-game is the way to go:

1) Basic Movement - A rundown of the basic movement ie. jump/double-jump, dodge, dodge jump.
2) Basic Weapons - Again, a basic rundown of each weapon in the game, how to use it, and what it's good for and not good for.
3) Advanced Movement - The more advanced moves explained. Dodge-jump, wall dodge and wall kick etc. (if they make it into the game). Movie also shows examples of proper usage for all the moves in-game.
4) Advanced Weapons - A more in-depth look at the weapons and their uses and examples of good usage of each weapon in-game.
5) General Tips - General advice for players, including some of the basic groundrules and tips that cover all the gametypes.
6) Etiquette - The general does and don'ts of the UT series, helpful for players coming from games with very different playing styles. A Counter-Strike player might think it perfectly normal to sit behind a box and snipe, something that's looked down on in UT etc.

1337
2nd Apr 2005, 07:20 PM
I think UT2004 feeds off the player base that are tired of cookie cutter games like CS. Getting rid of weapons and alt fire modes would only hurt the game imo. I think having a vast amount of weaponry and vehicles would only make the game more interesting to the new players. I'd rather get shock comboed, run over, torn to shreds with a flak cannon, etc... than get fragged by less variety of weapons. Spawn rape is an aspect of TDM and DM in almost every fast paced game. So if newcomers don't wish to be spawn raped they should play Conquest mode or CTF. DM is all about competition. If someone doesn't know how to play the game that well, they can't expect to get a kill on someone who put lots of hours into a game learning skills necessary to be competitive.

Razor_Shadow
2nd Apr 2005, 07:40 PM
I'd rather CS noobs are kept playing CS, where they belong. UT is for hardcore gamers. UT has always been and will always be the ultimate fps challenge. It is hard, it is tough, and the learning curve is a bitch,but once you get it right, its also the most rewarding game to play online. Any attempts to make it more "novice friendly" would n00bify it. Epic has done everything right so far to make the game more popular (envy i mean) and bring back players from the original ut. For it to appeal to yet more people all it needs is more sponsors/advertising. But,again, UT will NEVER appeal to those kids that play CS. The ut crowd is older,more mature,and more skilled.

Go&nd
2nd Apr 2005, 07:49 PM
I think this is a great thread and I strongly support Selerox's ideas. I believe the game and the community would greatly benefit from having a deeper, more functional tutorial system built into the game.

And for people obsessing on CS: I believe kafros just mentioned it as a single example and he didn't in any way imply that Epic should simplify UT just to appeal to CS players. Try not to get hung up on just CS while discussing this important topic.

Zur
2nd Apr 2005, 08:13 PM
I'm against this. Each time I play on a server and get "gangbanged" by 3-4 players at the same moment, I think the change of weapons from UT->UT2003->UT2004 already help beginners. Do any more changes and it will just drive off talent as all you have to do to get a frag is to spam in the general direction of a target.

Daedalus
2nd Apr 2005, 08:34 PM
why the hell do we want a bunch of dumbass jocks who cant stand loosing and inject themselves with testosterone playing our games?

Let the dumb bastards stay in CS and let them stay on their 450mhz Pentium II computers.

CyMek
2nd Apr 2005, 10:50 PM
I think CS is getting a worse rep then it deserves.
<--- plays cs:s

I will give you this: MANY of the players are foul, cruel, dumb, etc. but then again MANY are not, UT has this as well, although not as many lamers.

I really think Kafros is on to something here. I had an idea, inspired loosely from half life2.

Make a tutorial ladder that is optional, so that the people who have already played can skip it, but the newies can get better on. Start out with something like UT's Tutorial level, so that the player can learn how to get ready. Then, make a ladder with maps and AI that are geared towards honing different skills, although not as specific as say a skilltrials map. Maybe for example a map that has a number of very obvious places for wallkicks or dodgeramps, and maybe a flythrough that suggests doing those, with good pickups at the top. And then maybe another map where the rocket launcher is prominently placed with lots of adventageous areas to use it, and a breif 30-second clip explaining the potential uses at the begining. Then change the AI in the level so that they use the rockets whenever possible. Then rinse and repeat with other weapons and things that need teaching. Lastly, make maps skippable and repeatable so that you can master and move on.

FireCrack
2nd Apr 2005, 11:46 PM
I have played CS and i have learnt it's ways. The real thing aout CS is that you find one weapon you're good with then you sxtick with it, you dont always have to go hunting for new gunds, you only have to learn your favorite, none else.

T2A`
2nd Apr 2005, 11:49 PM
<-- Played CS:S three times offline and never wanted to play it again, online or otherwise.

Some sort of tutorial system like what Selerox suggested is definitely the way to go to get new players to the new UT. CS whores will stay CS whores no matter how UT changes, so don't worry about them. Let them and their clans develop "pro strats" on how to dominate Dust using AK-47s. Meanwhile I'll be telefragging people and flinging flak shells 'til I die.

I have played CS and i have learnt it's ways. The real thing aout CS is that you find one weapon you're good with then you sxtick with it, you dont always have to go hunting for new gunds, you only have to learn your favorite, none else.That's why it's so appealing. Every time you play it's exactly the same as the last time. People will do the same things over and over on the same two maps all day.

Mr.Magnetichead
3rd Apr 2005, 04:32 AM
I don't want CS players playing Unreal. There are already enough INA jar heads floating about ruining things.

Nosnos
3rd Apr 2005, 04:55 AM
Best way is to make tutorials like Selerox suggested... When playing online you see a lot of people (well you used to anyway) that didn't know the first thing about movement and the weapons... They accused players of cheating when they saw the "fly around" the map when all they did was using dodgejumps and walljumps... The tutorials should be interactive though so they get to do the things shown to them before they get to move on...

And I dont know about getting players from CS to play UT, that will just never happen, what I would like is to get players from all the UT- and Quake-games. Extremly unlikely but it would be nice ^^

This isn't about SP-play but I read somewhere that they were going to use a statssystem to find suitable servers for players... If they manage to implement this in a good way I think it's going to help out a lot.

Mr.Magnetichead
3rd Apr 2005, 05:51 AM
There are interactive tutorials already.

They're called BOTS.

Nosnos
3rd Apr 2005, 05:55 AM
Well if the bots showed players how to do all the "fancy" moves they do then it would be a tutorial... now it's pretty useless except for learning how to aim tbh

Mr.Magnetichead
3rd Apr 2005, 05:58 AM
Fancy moves? What like...jumping.

Nosnos
3rd Apr 2005, 06:04 AM
Fancy moves? What like...jumping.

Dont the bots dodgejump/walldodge in UT2004? I haven't played them so I wouldnt know... but I really though they did and many consider that to be fancy ;)

kafros
3rd Apr 2005, 08:35 AM
Most of you have mistunderstood my post (apart from Selerox, Go&nd, and a couple more ppl).

I want UT to remain as hardcore as it is but on the same time provide a means for new players to start-up without being raped online. This will increase the player base which is something that will (finally) fill up the empty servers (at least in Greece where I live).

I mentioned CS because of its player base, no other reason. I DO NOT like CS.

Selerox ideas are a good start.

I started getting better after reading guides and tips on this forum and watching some gameplay videos. It would be much better if all these were somehow in UT2004 Single Player. Not all ppl go out reading forums...

Do you do polls that you can send to EPIC? If yes do you think this can be a poll cantidate?

Selerox
3rd Apr 2005, 09:47 AM
Wow, the ammount of elitist wankers in this forum appears to be a lot higher than I thought. This is not a CS thing. This is about helping people new to the game. It's about helping to let this community grow. It's about being a welcoming community.

What is the problem with that?

I've played CS:S for two months over winter. I still play a couple of CS:S games for a change of pace now and then. I see more bad attitude and lame behaviour in a single day playing UT than I saw in two weeks of playing CS:S :mad:

I genuinely don't see the problem with anything that helps new players and brings more people into the game. Yes, the more people play, the more idiots you might get. But as a proporttion it won't increase. The community right now has enough of them to spare anyway.

Personally, I find the "we don't want them, they're not good enough for our game" attitude distgusting.

Mr.Magnetichead
3rd Apr 2005, 09:57 AM
I haven't played them so I wouldnt know...

Then your arguments have no basis.

You lose.

Israphel
3rd Apr 2005, 10:03 AM
I get what you're saying Kafros and I think you're right.
What it seems that you mean IS NOT that you want CS players to start playing UT - this won't ever happen as the games are so utterly different - but that you would like UT to have more players. That new players will take UT as their game of choice.

I can't stand CS, and my first FPS online experiences were with MOH. I never bothered with UT until 2k4 because, like you pointed out, I got sick and tired of getting killed so fast and the learning curve being so steep...basically because of the sophistication of the weapons and the movement.

Now I'm not saying that the game should be nerfed...I guess ALL UT players would say that one thing they love about UT is that very sophistication that makes the game so intimidating to new players. The sophistication is what gives the game it's rich depth and balance, it's playability and fun. Any significant nerfing of these would change the game too much and UT would lose something of its essence..the very thing that makes it UT.

Making the game accessible to new players, while maintaining the soul of UT that keeps the hard-core types is an incredibly difficult balance to hit.

I'm heartened by what I hear about Envy though, the reduction of the "bounciness" of the players will be one step towards making the game more about killing, rather than dodging...and this should make the game more accessible.
The suggested tutorials are another good idea.

I'm also interested to see how the proposed "skill matching" server finder will work...it COULD be a brilliant idea....but I guess it will be really difficultto successfully pull off..we'll see.

But the best thing that Epic have done for newer players is the innovation of Onslaught. This levelled the playing fields and gave newer players (like myself) a way into the game. I'm glad to see ONS returning in the next UT game as it should maintain that player base (as the DM/TDM/CTF player bases should hopefully be retained as well), and hopefully Conquest can do what Onslaught did and bring in even more new players. In many cases, people who are brought into the game by Onslaught have eventually moved across and started playing DM or CTF

I am constantly surprised (hadn't seen it much in BU until recently in the new Envy forum when some new people registered) at the snobbishness of some DM/CTF players in their attitude towards ONS. The constant referring to ONS players as n00bs, and ONS as a n00b game is very telling, and leads me to believe that there is a certain (very tiny) minority of people who resent new players in the game. This is sad, I wonder if such people don't actually want more people playing the game, or if they critisize ONS because it's a gametype where newer players can gey kills off more experienced players.
UT shouldn't be an elite hard-core club...but by saying that I'm not saying that it should be nerfed to accomodate newer players.
Experience and time spent playing the game SHOULD be rewarded, but at the same time, those players have to accept that ONS is an incredibly popular gametype and Epic have just as much duty to please ONS players as they do DM/CTF players.

UT can never appeal to the CS players en masse (and this isn't what Kafros was saying) but I really hope it can increase it's populity and get a significantly wider player base. So much of what is good about this game comes from the community, and increasing the size of the community increases the possibility of getting the next Hourences or the next Soma into the community...and that can only be a good thing.

EDIT: Great post Selerox :tup: It does sadden me the amount of elitism that we're seeing around this forum at the moment. When I said I hated CS it was nothing to do with the player, it's just not my kind of game.

Zur
3rd Apr 2005, 10:33 AM
Well, if my post is considered as elistist then you have it all wrong. To add what I was saying about spam, if this is emphasized too much what will happen is that it will become the dominant playing style on servers. That will be a shame because it's a mindless way to play a game and players won't be motivated to discover more intricate ways to handle situations. The bottom line is this : make the game too beginner friendly and you will render it shallow and devoid of any thinking.

As for kafros' original post, I must say I misunderstood it. I'm all for some advanced tutorials. How about some players from BeyondUnreal get together and make some demos explaining various aspects of the game ? It could be called the Community Tutorial Pack or something :p .

Nosnos
3rd Apr 2005, 10:43 AM
Then your arguments have no basis.

You lose.

So all the bots do is jump? I thought mysterial worked on them for UT2004 to make it possible for them to do "all" the moves human players can do... he did it for UT2003 so why wouldnt it work for UT2004...

Zur
3rd Apr 2005, 10:53 AM
The UT2004 bots do walljumps (usually in firefights to throw off aim) but they're still no comparison for live players. I have yet to see a bot that dodge-jumps from one floor to the other of rankin, do proper slide dodges or camp near the rocket launcher.

Radiosity
3rd Apr 2005, 10:53 AM
Mysterial was hired by epic to work on the bot code. He still works for them now. And yes, the bots do 'most' of the moves players can do, though some of the really advanced stuff still seems to be beyond them. They even impact jump with the shield at higher levels (masterful and up).

edit: thanks Azura, beat me to the post by like 10 seconds ;)

NeoNite
3rd Apr 2005, 11:09 AM
Mysterial was hired by epic to work on the bot code. He still works for them now. And yes, the bots do 'most' of the moves players can do, though some of the really advanced stuff still seems to be beyond them. ;)

Beyond the person who codes the bots, you mean?

Because, it's merely A.I. ...

Tournament0
3rd Apr 2005, 11:38 AM
What's to be fixed apart from all the problems?

Razor_Shadow
3rd Apr 2005, 11:47 AM
Now I'm not saying that the game should be nerfed...I guess ALL UT players would say that one thing they love about UT is that very sophistication that makes the game so intimidating to new players. The sophistication is what gives the game it's rich depth and balance, it's playability and fun. Any significant nerfing of these would change the game too much and UT would lose something of its essence..the very thing that makes it UT.


Couldnt have said it better.

kafros
3rd Apr 2005, 11:52 AM
glad to see that I am not the only one (Israphel) that got back into online playing due to ONS.

IMO ONS is even more demanding than the other game types since you have to master the vehicles in addition. But at least a new player could feel a bit usefull for his team (heal a node or a vehicle, man a turret, keep the skies clear with the AVRIL and get an easy kill or two).

I hope they bring some kind of ranking (like the one advertised for Battlefield 2) so that more experienced players get a special position in the team to lead (provide a new interface so that more specific commands can be given, etc. )

UnrealGrrl
4th Apr 2005, 05:14 PM
.....and that is:

How to get all Counter Strike players who are dug up behind boxes in the 2-3 poppular maps into this new game. I hust hate seeing all servers empty of players for UT2004 while CS servers are full.

The biggest strength (for me) of UT2004 is its deep gameplay but it is at the same time the greatest weakness (noob unfriendly). I dont want EPIC to change anything but I think that new players will not be able to come into a game that has:

1. 9 weapons with 2 firing modes each
2. advanced movement (double dodge + jump , wall jumps, etc...)
3. insane kills/hours rate (being a begginer and getting killed every 5 secs is no fun)


So if EPIC takes any feedback from this forum (polls?) I hope you all ask for this:

How to introduce the advanced aspects of the game while playing in SP, so that new players will be better prepared for on-line.

I like the gameplay suggestions in this forum. Keep producing them :)


excellent idea... and i know how you feel.

its not so much though that you even need to get the CS players playing UT, but game players playing UT again...

Seleroxs idea about following up witha Very Good instructional demo of all gameplay aspects is critical to helping get more players in on the action too!

if Epic goes in the direction they seem to be saying they will, then i think they are taking steps to do just that. entice old UT players back to the game, and get new players involved on a level we havent seen before...

i really hope thats what happens and alot of these suggestions and ideas could help to those ends. :)

Crion
4th Apr 2005, 11:37 PM
I'm also interested to see how the proposed "skill matching" server finder will work...it COULD be a brilliant idea....but I guess it will be really difficultto successfully pull off..we'll see.
I'd appreciate such a system.

Here's my thoughts: Players can choose to have stats matter or not. No stats = free-for-all. Stats on and UT will filter out matches you would own at or get owned.

CyMek
5th Apr 2005, 05:31 PM
I like the idea of matching skill levels, but there is just sooo much that goes into determinig what makes a player good that it would be extremely difficult to balance it right. The other problem is when your not playing seriously. My stats truly do suck because I am prone to playing maps like Tricky and just stunting, or getting into protracted suicide matches with my friends, things like that.

But if Epic can pull it off, it will truly own. Hardcore.

Selerox
5th Apr 2005, 06:43 PM
The problem with the stats sytem in UT200x is that it's been, well, just a tad unstable. It has often ben down for months. Any stats system for UT3 needs to be able to handle it and adapt to changing player numbers/gametypes. A stats system is essential for any lobby system to work, so it has to be a main priority to get it set up right by the time the game shows up so that it's built in.

One thing I'd like to see is no option to remove servers from the stats system. To keep all the players tracked, and to increase the likelyhood of funding players via the lobby systm. I'm also going to presume any lobby system will allow for filters for location. There might be the perfect game out there for me. But if it's on the other side of the planet, then it's not really what I'm looking for. That CTF game in Sydney might be great, but I'd prefer to stick to Europe if that's ok :)

Mr.Magnetichead
5th Apr 2005, 06:47 PM
So all the bots do is jump? I thought mysterial worked on them for UT2004 to make it possible for them to do "all" the moves human players can do... he did it for UT2003 so why wouldnt it work for UT2004...


My point really went right over your head didn't it.

Bot_40
5th Apr 2005, 07:27 PM
There are interactive tutorials already.

They're called BOTS.

New players don't particularly want to spend 10 hours getting owned by bots just to learn simple basics like how to move and what each of the weapons do.

A decent tutorial system would imo help a lot of people get into the game quickly and it certainly wouldn't take anything away from the game.

fresh&minty
5th Apr 2005, 08:18 PM
Actually UT is VERY noob friendly compared to say quake (for frag skills) or tribes (for depth) it's one of the easiest "plug and play" games out there, and to top it off, it has ONS, the noobiest of noob'd up stuff to ever hit (and IG though that is less noobish).

the problem is UT is a jack of all trades but a master of none. It's not the best DM game, it's not the best CTF game, and it's not the best massive shooter game. It's good at all those, but doesn't stand out as "roxors you boxors" in any one category. So you have a small community (game isn't that popular) split among a slew of choices, making things even smaller and creating pockets of elite, and casual players.

In games dedicated to one thing (cs, quake, ET) you have a game that does one thing VERY well, and is devoted to that. So you get a large community, and a broad skill range. Making the game apealing to new players, and giving it the ability to stand the test of time (hell quake 3 has 3200 players online at a time, more than double 2k4, and CS just blows the lid off, and the learning curve on that game makes UT look like a sand box).

IF the next UT is going to work, it's going to have to find a niche, and do it better than every other game... in that aspect it will self form a casual (read lots of pubs filled with pub noobs), and competitive (read locked clan servers for tournaments full of good players) community that will stand the test of time.

As for CS, don't make me laugh. You can't draw CS players over. They don't play CS because of the gametypes, but because it's THE MOST COMPETITIVE FPS OUT. Untill EPIC is willing to accept B skins, hit sounds, and the slew of other competitive components and force the game into top events, it will never have the following CS does, nor the chance to steal those players.

DeeperShade
5th Apr 2005, 08:33 PM
Every single one of your posts is knocking UT in someway. If you dislike it so much, why exactly are you here?

fresh&minty
5th Apr 2005, 10:07 PM
I'm not antiUT, if I was I wouldn't play it

However I do strongly feel that EPIC needs to get their priorities straight.

I also think that UT players tend to be way to defensive and opt the "my game is to hard omg" which is complete BS as an explanation of it's problems, which is not only a lie, but doesn't help things. The first step is to get a grip, and accept that 1. the game is far from perfect, 2. offering up BS explanations for it's failure only makes things worse. Once you pass that you can go about how to fix things.

I didn't knock UT once in that post, instead I simply pointed out some of the differences with it and other FPS games that are doing better, in the hopes of illustrating why they are doing better (ie why does quake3 have a larger DM community than UT). Just because the truth hurts, doesn't make it false.

So yes, I posted a slew of facts that might reflect negatively on a game (that I love and play) since the thread was about fixing UT, and drawing new players. I posted why it hasn't, and why it won't, and you got upset because your communities mass response of "omg it's just to hard" is bullox.

you got served

FireCrack
5th Apr 2005, 10:44 PM
CS if anything has a very shallow learning curve.

fresh&minty
5th Apr 2005, 10:58 PM
CS if anything has a very shallow learning curve.

you could argue that learning curve is partly based on the skill set of your community, which in CS (the top comp fps in the world) can be rather high.

-AEnubis-
6th Apr 2005, 01:06 AM
IME, 99% of the people that got into that game (CS) did it for one of two reasons.

1: Admited liking to it's simplicity.
2: Preference to realism in games.

The one guy that wasn't one of those reasons did is simply because of population. He had friends in a clan, so he had people he could play competatively with. He also got tired of it fast (but came back with much better hitscan in this game).

AFAICT, those are two reasons this franchise can do nothing about, nor does it want to.

you could argue that learning curve is partly based on the skill set of your community...

You could argue a lot of things. In this case, that would simply reveal ones inability to understand the difference between knowing how something goes, and actually being able to do it yourself.

It's not really a "learning curve" is someone simply has better preception or reflexes then you, and that is what creates most of your upper teir skill gaps in that game, not "knowing the game" as can be a problem in this one.

I also can't say I see where your coming from with Quake "frag skills" learning curve. Getting your foot in the door in Quake seemed much easier, then it was in UT. UT took some getting used to with certain things, and once you learned those things, you took a distinct advantage over players how didn't know them, and you could tell.

In quake, it took all of 30 seconds to aquaint your self with any of it's basic aspects, and you were fraggin in no time. The only bias I may have faced, was I knew how to script it, so I could set my controls up like I did in UT, for getting weapons in groups, and I was good to go.

If anything one could argue that it's because Quakes basics were basic, and it's complex side was overly so, where as UT's basics are not as basic, but to balance, it's more complex aspects were just basics applied, and hence it attracts a different style of learning. Harder to start, but easier to finish, where quake was the opposite. Since it was easier to "get started", then players felt like they could "hang", or would at least get their frags and have their fun, so they stuck around.

In UT, when trying to get some people into it they quit, simply saying "I just couldn't frag anything, I didn't get it."

cubemario
6th Apr 2005, 01:58 AM
I say embrace them. Make it friendly. Just don't make it have weapons or aiming system like the cs series and everyone will be happy.

Israphel
6th Apr 2005, 06:27 AM
I agree with Aenubis.
Fresh and Minty, while your points are valid, they seems to only come from the perspective of a "pro" player. In most of your posts you make some back-handed disparaging remarks about new players which leads me to believe that it's been a very long time since you were actually a new player and have forgotten what it's like.

Like many people here, I've played a lot of games, and UT was by far the hardest to learn. As I (and many others) have said this difficulty is part of the thing that gives it it's depth, but it DOES scare many players off.
I've tried to get so many players into this game and invariably they come back with "it's just too ****ing hard".

Now you may laugh and sneer at this..but it is a fact that many pro gamers seem to have forgotten. The VAST MAJORITY of any game's base, be it UT or CS is made up of casual gamers...not pros. So your argument about people playing CS because it's the "most competetive fps out there" may be true from where you are standing..but for the casual gamer, ie the majority, that isn't necessarily the case.

I'm a teacher, and many of the students who are into gaming between the 13-16 group play CS. Why? They play it because it runs well on low spec systems, they play it because all their mates do and they play it because it's easy to get into. I've played CS, and like MoH and CoD it is VERY easy to pick up and play....Within a week of playing I found I could do decently on most pub servers (and in my experience of the game, the skill set on most pub servers wasn't particularly high). The game simply is not that hard and that makes it attractive to casual gamers. The hundreds of thousands of people playing CS for the most part aren't playing it because its highly competetive...they're playing it because it is really simple to pick up and get into.

Now you might like to come back and flame me and tell me that I'm speaking bs....you seem to accuse anyone of bs who doesn't agree with you while stating that your opinions are "facts" and that's fine....but almost all your posts in one way or another refer to the pro community...and the pro community does not reflect the average player of any game.
The average gamer has a low spec PC, does not have much time to dedicate to gaming and has many games to choose between.
The average gamer does not belong to a clan, does not play on pro servers and does not play competetively.

I do agree with you totally that UT has tried to hard to be a jack of all trades...that what is a relatively small community is further fractured by UT2kx attempt to be all things to all people. It's true that this therefore makes the skill gap more apparent on many servers - fewer players means a less even spread of all skill levels, and this is a problem. Hopefully the decision to drop a slew of gametypes and focus on 3 staples (plus the new Conquest) will in some way remedy that. I guess we'l see.

You may like to look down at noobs, but the fact is that there are a lot more noobs (noobs by your standards that is..I've been playing UT for a year so to you I am undoutably a noob) than pro players at any given game.
However as a newer player to the game I feel I can probably comment quite clearly on what it feels like for newer/casual players to come into UT..which is after all what this thread is about.

Fortunately the comments coming from Epic indicate that they are aware of the difficulties to new players and are taking steps to address it.

L0cky
6th Apr 2005, 06:59 AM
A decent tutorial system would imo help a lot of people get into the game quickly and it certainly wouldn't take anything away from the game.
It'd be better having one that not, but most people just want to jump into the game and play it. Take XMP, the tutorial was prominantly the first thing on the menu, and 90% of people I spoke to didn't even realise it was there.

They should make a tutorial that people actually want to watch, even if you don't need it. Have some wow factor with it, like some of the good frag/trick movies, perhaps as an intro to the tutorial that'll generate some word of mouth and make new players actually want to dig in until they can do the things demonstrated.

kafros
6th Apr 2005, 07:44 AM
After some thinking (involving both of my -total of 2- brain cells) and reading the nice feedback on this thread it seems to me that, a new player will remain motivated ONLY if he can get a few easy kills.

Getting killed 30 times but scoring 5-7kills is OK for a start (the brain tends to dicard that you just got raped and remembers only the frags you made).

Integration of tutorials IN the game (as suggested by many of you) seems to be a must, but getting some kills seems to be as important.

I dont want EPIC to tone down the movement or take any moves out, but how is a noob (what a noobisist term) going to shot a good player who can dodge every shot?

Do you think a handicap system tied to the ranking system would help? (being on the bottom of the food chain gives you more health/armor at spawn/pick-up and your weapons can do a bit more damage)

And in case you are wondering why am I being nice for new players:

I AM SICK OF PLAYING ON EMPTY SERVERS (doctors say that playing with yourself is not so good in the long run)

edhe
6th Apr 2005, 08:07 AM
Handicaps would bugger up the vanilla gametypes, that's what mods like TAM are for.

IMHO a rating system based off the rankings that are taken from your GUID would be best. The browser could 'colour' servers dependant on how ranked the players are in there, and admins could control what levels get in and use it. Imho that would change the scene of online FPS greatly... adding a bit of 'level up' and some fairness.

In-game tutorials *need* to be advanced. Some interactive easy training things will get the noobiest of noobs into the game a lot easier. A Training map would be good enough.. "Shoot that with this" "Shoot that with this whilst doing this" "Shoot that with this, avoid this then shoot with this whilst moving there" etc etc would be a big map :).

The users need to be supported, instead of just throw in.

*edit - major problem with this is the ranking system, it'd have to be consistent, accurate and well devised - taking on types of weapon kills at various ranges, flag carry times, vehicle effectiveness, 'clustering' (how much time players spend within certain distances of other team players in proportion to the map - ie a 'teamwork quotient', or 'aggression quotient' if used for nme team), objective completion (all kinds of events, including map powerup pickup percentage)... all in relative to those on the same server and this would have to be processed somewhere that won't kill off the online game - but considering the multiple CPU state of most servers it shouldn't be too hard to crunch some numbers.

*edit 2 - also comparitive logs of what the people say, including profanities / lines per hour / etc.... All this kind of information would help clans find players, and players find clans too. Would help keep the community alive...

Again it sounds like mmorpg stats and level ups and areas etc.. and that is what needs to happen to *support* the users into enjoying the game to it's full.

Renegade Retard
6th Apr 2005, 09:39 AM
Some kind of tutorial system would be a very smart idea, and should be included in any demo as well. Something that goes over the basics, and allows players to learn enough of the "framework" of the game to at least get an idea of how to play. UT is a tough game to learn for a new player. It's much faster than most games out there and there's a lot to think about. A tutorial system can only help to ease new players into the game.

A simple series of well-made tutorial movies would be a great help.

I couldn’t agree more. However, I think the in-game training should be taken a bit further.

As a former educator and coach, I can say that the best way to teach a new skill is to 1) explain it in detail, 2) demonstrate it, and then 3) have the “student” practice it until they feel comfortable with it. If they are not comfortable, then the steps need to be repeated. Also, teach skills progressively from easiest to hardest, with the harder skills building upon the basic skills.

If I were creating a tutorial for the game, here’s what I’d do:

Have interactive “training sessions,” where the player can get 1 on 1 training from a bot. You can click into these training sessions just like you would for Instant Action. Select the training you want (basic movement, advanced weapons use, whatever). When you enter the training session, you’ll be in a training map with a bot. You’ll hear an announcer voice explain how the skill is done. Once the explanation is completed, you’ll get an option menu to either “repeat the explanation” or “continue”. Once you select “continue” , the bot will demonstrate how to do the skill, followed by a menu to either “repeat demonstration” or “continue.” Once “continue” is selected, you are then advised to attempt the skill. If you perform the skill incorrectly, the announcer/voice instructs you on what you did wrong or how to do it correctly, and the bot demonstrates again. Once you’ve completed the skill correctly, the announcer confirms that it was correct. You are then given an option menu to “repeat from the beginning”, “practice skill”, or “continue to next skill”. “Repeat for the beginning” will take you to the beginning of the skill training. “Practice skill” will allow you to continue practicing the skill until you are satisfied. “Continue to the next skill” will move you to the next skill to be practiced, where the same steps are taken for the next skill.

This is what I would do, but I’m no programmer, so I have no clue what would be required for this. I can’t imagine it would be too difficult though.

edhe
6th Apr 2005, 10:23 AM
The bots would have to be complemented with a 'beam' showing where they're looking, and direction & control icons showing where they're going, and what command they're using to do it.

I suppose it would get up to dodge jumping through camera-xlocs then become a hard stream to follow. Great idea though, would stop the straightwalkers from thinking there wasnt much else to the game, and give them a good grasp at the start.

Selerox
6th Apr 2005, 12:01 PM
I was about to post a follow-up to my earlier post. But... er... Ren just did it...

Agreed :tup:

One thing that could enhance the idea is somehow making the pre-mapped "examples" done by a human player, and simply projected into the system/map. It'd make the movements seem a little less scripted and more natural. Also, rather than using a beam idea, why not simply show a quick clip of the jump being done using 1st person view (maybe in a small box in the top corner of the screen while the jump is being viewed from 3rd person.

cubemario
6th Apr 2005, 12:27 PM
If epic makes a good tutorial for newbies, you gotta force them to play it. You go to do something and it automatically goes to teh tutorial for the first time and you sit and watch it.

I know it's unfair to us, but that would be the only way to get the point across.

Renegade Retard
6th Apr 2005, 12:55 PM
"K, time to post that follo... wtf, is Ren pyshic?!"

I knew you were going to ask that!

why not simply show a quick clip of the jump being done using 1st person view (maybe in a small box in the top corner of the screen while the jump is being viewed from 3rd person.

Or a cut sceen, kind of like the cut sceens in AS when an match is over (convoy driving away, missle launching, etc). You can have a cut sceen of someone doing the skill.

L0cky
6th Apr 2005, 02:25 PM
They could physically disable the online menu item if the tutorials haven't been completed, with an ini option to disable it ;)

JaFO
6th Apr 2005, 03:39 PM
pfff ... do it like America's Army and actually register the fact that player X has completed tutorial Y. ;)

The tutorials/practice-stuff should have some kind of score/reward system. A bit like the license-tests in Grand Tourismo. So a player who completes a tutorial has a reason to go back and try harder (ie : you need to hit 60% of the targets to complete the basic weapon-tutorial).

As a bonus-feature you could use the scores in the various tutorials as a basis for player-ranking in online-games. This would give players the choice between completing the tutorials & perhaps be ranked 'veteran' within a day or not play the tutorials and play a dozen or so matches within a week before that rank is reached ...

As for stats-tracking ... I think the idea sounds good, but in reality it's only useful in DM-style games and thus can't be used to enforce min/max-stats in servers. There'd always be a way to beat the system, just like stat-players do right now.
for example : they figure that letting the enemy take the flag and then killing the enemy and returning it gets them the most points, so they do that instead of playing the game like they should ...

Dark Pulse
6th Apr 2005, 03:52 PM
Pretty interesting ideas, but a Tutorial will only teach the basics. True mastery of a skill, be it sniping, movement, or whatever, is simply done through years and years of practice and repetition.

JaFO
6th Apr 2005, 03:56 PM
of course, but at least they would have a chance to know about the basics right from the start.

Renegade Retard
6th Apr 2005, 04:32 PM
of course, but at least they would have a chance to know about the basics right from the start.

yeah, instead of them just looking at you and screaming "hey, how did you jump like that???"

JaFO
6th Apr 2005, 04:45 PM
or shouting "hey U haxxorzed teh game U aimbot !!!1111"