All sounds nice but 1 thing remains to be fixed....

[-AEnubis-]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"K, time to post that follo... wtf, is Ren pyshic?!"

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]

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]

"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]

They could physically disable the online menu item if the tutorials haven't been completed, with an ini option to disable it

 

[JaFO]

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]

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]

of course, but at least they would have a chance to know about the basics right from the start.

 

[Renegade Retard]

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]

or shouting "hey U haxxorzed teh game U aimbot !!!1111"