1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. 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.

A new development strategy.

Discussion in 'Unreal Tournament 3' started by T2A`, Feb 28, 2008.

  1. esJ

    esJ Environment Artist

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dude, playing CS on public servers puts you in contact with like the bottom 10% of the skill histogram. Once you start playing good teams, you'll rapidly begin to understand how much more depth there is to the game, than is apparent to the average bystander.
    oh and ESR sucks =/
     
  2. N1ghtmare

    N1ghtmare Sweet Dreams

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2005
    Messages:
    2,411
    Likes Received:
    12
    You could see the same even more in the best UT3 players. Heck you see that in EVERY GAME. But most people don't decide to play in clans or competitively.
     
  3. DarQraven

    DarQraven New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did I say I *only* played pubs?;)
    I said I *rocked* them, as in consistent top 3 placement. Often with a wide margin.

    It's all pure logic:

    -less movement options -> easier to aim, harder to dodge -> puts less focus on aim and reflexes -> makes difference between high-skill players and low-skill players smaller.

    -random spread -> Makes it very difficult or at least relatively ineffective to use quick reflexes and 'snap aiming' to hit people, need to stand still and crouch, or strafe, burst and hope for the best. Again: makes difference between high-skilled and low-skilled smaller (after everyone gets over the initial spray 'n pray phase)

    -Weapons that blind enemies for 2-3 seconds. Slows gameplay down, because noone will go rushing through a door that they know is being guarded by people with flashbangs.

    -No way to attack beside direct fire, with the exception of grenades. Only a few grenades allowed per round, so they should be used sparingly. Bland combat when compared to 'free movement' games like Quake, UT and Warsow.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2008
  4. esJ

    esJ Environment Artist

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    I find it easier to hit people in Quake/UT than in CS (and before you drop a "lol youre bad at cs" comment, I play the game semi-professionally (not gonna mention cod4 because I haven't played it much)). Kinda throws your 'logic' out the window, no?

    The recoil in CS is actually scripted to follow a predetermined pattern (note I'm talking about CS here, not CSS) so therefore it's actually a very skill-based rather than luck-based skill. It's a lot harder than spraying with the minigun in UT3 for sure =) and actually learning the recoil patterns in CS takes a very long time to do until you're comfortable spraying an entire magazine, and hitting every bullet with the same accuracy as you would a 4-5 round burst.

    Uhhh .... yes they will, and CS players often do. A large part of a good rush or defense against a rush in CS, is making sure that you aren't blind, and that the other team is. It takes rather more skill, experience and timing than you seem to be making apparent with your generalised statements. Add to the fact that the best players can still react quickly and shoot accurately whilst their screen is like 80% white, and you'll quickly see why flashbangs really aren't that overpowering or skill-reducing. Remind me where anybody said that slow gameplay was bad again?

    Errr .... we've been playing the same CS right? The one where you can like ... spam people through walls? Remind me how often a non-directfire weapon has actually come in useful in Quake or UT where you couldn't have used a direct-fire weapon to pretty much the same effect?

    That's personal opinion, and not really relevant to this discussion.


    Frankly, you're talking out of your ass. Please just accept that there is no clear-cut way to determine which game takes more skill - because they do in fact both take an abundance of skill to get very good at.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2008
  5. DarQraven

    DarQraven New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    1,164
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yes, this is why I don't like engaging in comparisons about games. People will assume I'm trying to tell them one is 'better' than the other and will be offended by it.

    So let's say I'm indeed talking out of my ass and have just been told off by a vastly more experienced CS player. My question then is: how is a semi-professional's style of play of any relevance to the public perception of the game style?

    How does a pro's ability to shoot land headshots while 80% blinded in any way effect the 99% of players below him that can't?
    Since this thread is about how and why UT3 is not popular and that 'mainstream' gamers aren't buying/enjoying it, my comments are meant to represent the views of a good-but-not-pro (just like me) gamer.
    Stating that people that dedicate anywhere from 2-5 hours a day in one single game CAN do some of the things I just said were near impossible is not a contradiction of anything, but rather a confirmation that practice makes perfect. Nothing else. Hence the term *near* impossible.

    There's also people that can stack eggs on top of each other or throw three triple-twenties in a row while blindfolded. That doesn't mean that it isn't near frickin' impossible.

    When talking about difficulty, I don't think it can be expressed as a numeric value. I like to think of it as a curve. The Y axis would probably represent amount of talent/time invested needed to be succesful, while the X axis represents the level of playing that one wants to be succesful at.
    For UT, I'd say it's a pretty straight 45 degree line.
    For CS it's a curve that starts really flat, and only at higher levels becomes steeper. Most games' peak would probably be at the same value, with the exception of dumbed-down games where the graph would be a straight line once you pass "2 weeks into the game".
    Long story short: Any game can be as hard as you want, as long as you're playing against equal opponents. Hell, you can call a match of Tetris VS. harder than UT and CS combined as long as you're playing someone that's really good at tetris, and knows all the intricacies of the game. That doesn't mean that a beginner can't pick up tetris and survive the first 5 minutes without a problem.

    Btw, I found none of those counter-arguments very convincing.
    Your finding it easier to hit targets in UT/Quake(flying all over the place) than in CS(standing still, hiding behind a crate that you can shoot through or strafing -bunnyhopping is instant death), is also subjective and may even suggest that CS's cone of fire does indeed negatively affect a player's ability to land shots consistently. (Same input mechanism, same tracking skill, probably same FOV, same mouse, higher game performace, yet less/slower movement and *still* harder to hit?)

    Also, I wouldn't call being able to shoot through the odd wall/crate (where you're not completely gambling about your opponent's whereabouts) indirect fire. It's still point and click, just with an obstacle in between.
    I'm talking about stuff like hitting people with splash damage, either from rockets, combos, flak secondary, the grenade launcher in Q3, etc. Even UT rockets' ability to change course in mid-air when locked could be called indirect fire. Stuff that allows you to hit people while taking yourself out of the line of fire, or that will allow you to 'probe' a location for enemy presence(listen for damage sounds), or that will allow you to set a trap of sorts for someone that you know is going to be somewhere. Stuff that allows for an advantage when used right, and in combination with superior tactics.

    As for recoil patterns, I must admit I haven't played CS very much before CS:S. I, for one, have not learned the recoil patterns.
    I am no stranger to fixed spread patterns though, and have played at least a couple of games that incorporated them into their weapons.
    I'm going to refer to my 'curve' idea again here, there is probably a 1% of the CS players that can spray an entire magazine, hitting every shot, while moving, on a moving target. The other 99% will probably resort to bursts, or standing still for a fraction of a second when firing, etc. This is still completely ignoring the fact that even when one has mastered the recoil compensation, you still need to track the opponent.
    Saying that the recoil patterns therefore do not hold a player back when it comes to aim is nonsense. It's like saying that there are UT players out there that can get 2 headhunter awards in a single match, therefore the sniper rifle is overpowered, completely ignoring the other tens of thousands of players that cannot even get a single headhunter award consistently.
    Fact remains: there is a mechanism in place in CS that makes your shots land somewhere else than where you aimed. This mechanism will have to be worked around by the player (or compensated, such as you describe) before the actual in-game accuracy will be equal to the player's tracking accuracy.
    Some players will be able to do this, the majority won't.
    Result: CS is less aim based 99,9% of the time.

    Please do not take offense again, my intention is far from trying to belittle the CS community (me being a part of it). I just think it is ignorant and slightly fanboyish to declare that a game with only hitscan weapons, restricted movement, and a much heavier focus on teamplay takes an equal amount of aiming talent/instinct/reflexes as a game where people will dodge all over the place, be able to fly halfway across an open space (2k4), move at 1,5-2 times the speed, are able to perform trickjumps and in the case of Q3, bunnyjump in order to accelerate to speeds FAR higher than normal walking speed.
    That's all.

    Point in case:
    Q3 CPMA
    UT2k4
    and CS1.6
    Mind you, both arena style games' videos are taken from 1v1 duels, whereas the CS video is 2 teams facing off. Considering that, the speed/chaos only intensifies when you add extra players.
    If after watching that you still feel CS is at least as aim-based or reflex-dependent as Q3 and UT then you're the one talking out of his ass, not me.
    Anyway, let's keep this slightly on topic now. If you feel you still have to enlighten me on the art of CS1.6, just use PM.
     
    Last edited: Mar 17, 2008
  6. esJ

    esJ Environment Artist

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2008
    Messages:
    34
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah sorry for the offtopic, it just really, really bugs me when people stereotype CS as being 'simple/easy' or 'point and click' when thats quite far from the truth.
     
  7. Argus

    Argus Spack Jazzrabbit

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2008
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    2
    esJ.. You haven't answered my question.

    What makes UT feel clumsy?
     
  8. wowzers

    wowzers New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2
    Likes Received:
    0
    With respect to CS, I must disagree. If you are a CS noob these days, you will get pwned repeatedly. This is because you will be one of the first players to die, consequently waiting for the round to end so you can play again. Result: Noobs spend more time watching the round play out than actually playing the game.

    I suppose being forced to watch the game can develop strategy, but I doubt it gives most noobs any enjoyment whatsoever.
     

Share This Page