I never time the sheilds. I just know when they're going to spawn. Usually I'll be right within 5 - 8 seconds of it respawning. So they can kill the clock and I'll still be able to steal the sheild. 
Shield Time Pwnt?!?! W!T?F! Is there no end?
- Thread starter TraCK
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
Yeah the best solution would be to remove the clock that way everyone complaining about having to time it with a clock in the first place wont even realize how the other guy keeps getting every AMP/100a
Actually, yeah ... If the 100a wasn't there I'd still be avoiding my opponent. Yeah, good point!
I think not having a clock would be a good idea. Quake 3 didn't have an in-game clock and considering its popularity it seemed to work out for that game.
Also I would consider timing the shield without a clock much more of a skill thank with one.
Also I would consider timing the shield without a clock much more of a skill thank with one.
Well as with any external program the people who take the time to make it work will use it and those who dont wont, the rest of usa will spend out time trying to find ways to keep them from using it. Thats no reason to give everone a clock just b/c a few people will cheat, thats MMO pansy thinking there.
Well it seems fairly unanamous that we wouldn't mind losing the clock in DM. That's cool, I never liked that thing anyways.
They will probably continue to keep the spawn intervals at odd numbers (odd in this context not being divisible by 5 or 10), and may even have something else up their sleve. It seems to have been an ongoing trend to make it at least hard to directly time items, since they know they can't "stop it."
The moral of the story is that is what DM is about. If you don't like it, find another game type. Sounds like a lot of you would enjoy TAM if you haven't played it before. You'll just have to put up with "your skills" being constantly insulted by elitest (or non-elitest in some cases ) TDMers, who call it a "noob gametype" just because it takes a bit less skill to play.
They will probably continue to keep the spawn intervals at odd numbers (odd in this context not being divisible by 5 or 10), and may even have something else up their sleve. It seems to have been an ongoing trend to make it at least hard to directly time items, since they know they can't "stop it."
The moral of the story is that is what DM is about. If you don't like it, find another game type. Sounds like a lot of you would enjoy TAM if you haven't played it before. You'll just have to put up with "your skills" being constantly insulted by elitest (or non-elitest in some cases
) TDMers, who call it a "noob gametype" just because it takes a bit less skill to play.
My favourite gametype is vanilla TDM with FF on and weaponstay off. This gives you a reason to move around and hog weapons, and not just 100a/amp, and people don't get to use their favourite weapon nonstop as it might not be there. I love denying those guys with crazy accuracies their LG or shock.
But man.. there's not exactly a bunch of servers running weaponstay off.
But man.. there's not exactly a bunch of servers running weaponstay off.
Last edited:
It originated from the same place every lame tactic originates ... from players that think they need to learn all the ins and outs of a game in order to beat an opponent instead of relying on pure guts and instinct.HardcorexxX said:
It's got nothing to do with the 'pro'-community like you would imply. They're just being real anal about a game that's supposed to be played for fun ...
I'd even be willing to bet that a lot of timing-material came from people analyzing/watching (godlike) bots play the game. As bots are the first 'players' that can instinctively discover pattern-runs in maps (they move from one powerup to another, deciding which to pick based on a fixed set of priorities).
funny ... you seemed to have forgotten the original reason. UT'99 didn't feature a file/unit called 'botpack' for no reason at all. Bots have been at the very core of this game from day 0.
On top of that ... how are you going to get any new players ?
Do you really want to see clueless newbies getting fragged into oblivion by 'experienced' players that have mastered timing ?
The one thing that off-line practice can offer is to show all of the aspects of the game from basic scoring to advanced strategies. If there is any problem then it's in the way the AI was designed. No one has ever designed it with the teaching this 'timing-strategy' in mind unfortunately.
nope, there's only 1 objective : control the enemy object and prevent them from controlling/taking yours.
And where do you get the statistics that actually proof this ?
So far the number of units sold has been far more than the number of players on-line, which can lead to only one conclusion : most prefer off-line games. Even Epic has acknowledged this on several occasions ...
LtG was an attempt at making a true sniperweapon. The UT'99-weapon had nothing to do with sniping except that it featured a scope. The LtG was (in theory) only useful as a long-range weapon as it's limited ammo and long reload/switch-time made sure it was extremely inconvenient in short range combat. No DoT-equations needed ... all they did was copy a real-world high-power sniperrifle (like the infamous Barret M82A1 'light fifty') and make it 'unreal' (lightning instead of bullets).
Redesigning the LtG/sniper falls under the same reasons the Linkgun and mini-gun were redesigned ... what good is a new game if all the weapons are pure copies of the previous version ? Why would anyone buy it if all you can deliver is slightly improved graphics ? So far the sport-series from EA are the only ones that can get away with it as new teams are enough of a reason ...
The problem with ammo-based balance is that any map can and will ruin the balance. There also can't be a real lack of ammo since it will harm the game in the frag-department and plenty of frags is what makes this game fun. If you want to wait for that one perfect shot in a game then you're probably more interested in 'realistic' games ...
You missed the point. It's not about how 'easy' it is to accumulate ammo, but it is merely to show that there are other powerups that play a role in determining who has the advantage.
the devil is in the details. You'd have to make absolutely sure that the area around the shield doesn't contain any 'offensive' powerups (ie : weapons and ammo) and vice versa. This makes taking the shield something that may be too dangerous to consider and thus you risc eliminating the one reason to fight ....
Hahaha... Spectating bots. What a hoot. Bots are so smart! I love the way they abandon battles in their midst and completely forget about their opponents to go look for health! Just like good players!JaFoo said:
Because that requires teamwork and pubs aren't about teamwork enough for it to be fun/feasible. Dunno how it is over there, but someone tried hosting a 4v4 TDM server with no weaponstay and no one played. No weaponstay is pretty much reserved for 1v1s, PUGs, and clan play.Fuzzle said:
Fuzzle said:
Well said. I have no difficulty timing the powerups, but the game just has no soul...it's become a complete counting game, especially 1v1. It's what made me stop playing UT. All of a sudden 'pro gamarz' who play 1v1 get popular and it becomes the biggest gametype played. 1v1 camping is so hella unfun. When you put two closely matched players together, the outcome of the entire match depends on who gets the 100 first.
IMO, random timing between 35 and 55 seconds would take at least some of the lamez0ring out of it
If you randomize the spawn time like that, you will just have more people camping the spawn point than if they knew exactly when to go there.
Plus it will make single player games that much more unfair, because only the bots will know exactly when it will spawn. This would make a gamer in single player have to camp the power ups just to make sure the bot doesn't get an unfair advantage. This would then transfer over into multi- player, because most of what a player learns from single player is then used against players on-line as well. Talk about boring and lame; I would never play UT if that was the case.
I’m sure someone will try to deny the above statement, but you really can’t because you know that would be true for a good majority of players.
Plus it will make single player games that much more unfair, because only the bots will know exactly when it will spawn. This would make a gamer in single player have to camp the power ups just to make sure the bot doesn't get an unfair advantage. This would then transfer over into multi- player, because most of what a player learns from single player is then used against players on-line as well. Talk about boring and lame; I would never play UT if that was the case.
I’m sure someone will try to deny the above statement, but you really can’t because you know that would be true for a good majority of players.
SOLAR said:
Thats how the game works. If you dont like it, then turn them off.
Player 1= gets all the powerups and kicks ass, wins.
Player 2= Ether learns to shoot better, or gets the powerups first.
Or
Player 1= This person sucks, but he gets the powerups.
Player 2= Gets lots of headshots, wins.
Bah, what game was it, lauke vs falcon? The guy who got the 1st 100a didn't win, and it was almost like it was planned that way by the victor.
I'm not a fan of the whole positive feedback loop thing, but it does kinda bother me when people talk about stuff without doing their research. It does take an immense amount of skill, and it's not just purely clock watching.
Really the only thing wrong with the style of play, is how if a match is slightly uneven, the score spread can be seriously uneven, and the game can be seriously un-entertaining to watch (and play IMO).
..and truth be told, if you timing skills aren't as good as somones, you can still beat them with fragging skills. Your fragging skills just have to be as much greater than theirs as their timing skills are than yours.
It just takes a decision and practice. If you got the skills, you will be good at what you practice. If you don't like something enough to practice it, play something else.
I'm not a fan of the whole positive feedback loop thing, but it does kinda bother me when people talk about stuff without doing their research. It does take an immense amount of skill, and it's not just purely clock watching.
Really the only thing wrong with the style of play, is how if a match is slightly uneven, the score spread can be seriously uneven, and the game can be seriously un-entertaining to watch (and play IMO).
..and truth be told, if you timing skills aren't as good as somones, you can still beat them with fragging skills. Your fragging skills just have to be as much greater than theirs as their timing skills are than yours.
It just takes a decision and practice. If you got the skills, you will be good at what you practice. If you don't like something enough to practice it, play something else.
That's not because of the powerups. It happens to any game that people get obsessively anal(ytical) about.ExiT said:
Eliminate powerups and those people will analyse weapon-statistics and obsess about ammo-counts, damage, etc. until they arrive at the ultimate weapon to whore (and the weapon X is overpowered/underpowered arguments start).
You see similar boring/non-fun tactics in other games.
For example : in CTF you'll see teams use 'turtle-tactic' (= play 100% defense) as soon as they get the 'winning' point and there's not enough time left on the clock. Why ? Because it is safe and ensures victory. The same tactic is used in real sports ...
I'd even dare you to name one game that doesn't involve a statistical analysis of risc vs reward whenever 'winning the game' becomes more important than playing ...
My argument about people complaining about things because they're bad still stands. You people are bitching about having to think and use tactics. WTF.JaFO said:
If the whole enemy team is playing defense, obviously your base doesn't need to be defended, so send your whole team in after the flag. Not that hard. People also enjoy complaining about adrenaline as this horrible unbalancer, which it's not. I will agree that it does give the team who's in the lead somewhat an advantage, but it's not going to be the deciding factor, because the whole reason they're getting it is because they are better than you. If you see someone boosting, call them out to your teammates and double- or triple-team him. Not that hard. I mean, he's got f**king "OMFGSHOOTME" green crosses coming off his body.
This game isn't meant to be mindless, and if you want it that way, you need to go play something else.
JaFo's right though, there are far too many people out there who value "winning" over "haveing fun" and hence do what they do. T2As got a point though. No strategy is "sure fire", and there is nothing I love more then thwarting "safe strategy's."
That analytical and exploitive attitude is part of the reason why I don't like the idea of a positive feedback loop in a game. Without them, stuff like that is much harder to exploit. Not impossible, but more difficult for sure.
That analytical and exploitive attitude is part of the reason why I don't like the idea of a positive feedback loop in a game. Without them, stuff like that is much harder to exploit. Not impossible, but more difficult for sure.