Originally Posted by SKYeXile
it may between players who cant aim vs those who can(im refering to spray and prey), but with those who can react fast and those who cant it lessens it. Once you have a targets its more about predicting their movements rather than reacting to it.
|
its only on a very low point where shortening it makes it favourable to a person of quick reflexes vs a person of actual shooting skill. and probably not even that sometimes depending on how the game is made, for example if theres a big percentage of times when they dont both spot eachother simultaneously. reflexes arent much of a skill anyway
Originally Posted by Stardouser
ADS doesn't decrease the skill gap, it changes the skills required. Quake style means you need the skills that relate to strafing all the time and ADS means you need situational awareness so that you don't stop and fire at a time that it will get you killed. Different skills, not a contracted skill gap.
|
yes it changes things. and whats your argument for that changing a thing would make it take the same amount of skill?
the skill ceiling is rediculous amounts lower in this type than the other. it seems quite natural to me, as it makes the screen zoom in when doing it and makes you move slower- easier to aim and easier to get aimed at
Originally Posted by Stardouser
Moderate TTK, which is what we need, allows getting the first shot to provide an advantage, but still gives people a chance to immediately dive for cover.
|
why do you seem so sure thats what we need?
Originally Posted by wasdie
I'm sorry but you are incorrect. Comparing the skills required in a very simple game like Quake (yes simple, deal with it, that's where the competition comes from, simple mechanics lead to complex tactics using very basic weaponry) to something like Battlefield is silly.
Those games are outdated. Their gameplay mechanics were very straight forward and simple. They had a focus on aiming, predicting enemy movements, map control, and AoE damage. That kind of gameplay is build for 1 v 1 or 5 v 5. Watching competitive quake is almost always 1 v 1.
The skillsets required by modern shooters like Battlefield are a larger emphasis on coordinating attacks/defenses with other players, balancing your team with the proper classes, utilizing vehicles simultaneously with infantry, and adapting to the changing situation by changing your loadout and weaponry on the fly. The map control isn't done by AoE denial with rockets/grenades, but it's done by fortifications and teamwork. This kind of gameplay is great for 32+ players.
Planetside 2 is about vehicles and numbers, not individual skill and 1 v 1 encounters.
You say that modern shooters bridge the gap between players, and on a 1 v 1 basis that is true. But you take a 16 v 16 with extremely skilled solo players on one, and decently skilled players who are extremely coordinated on the other, and the coordinated players will win every time in a modern shooter.They may not get more kills, they may have lower K/D ratios, but they'll win. The differences in skills are measured completely different in these larger games. The goals of the games are completely different. You're ignoring everything that makes modern shooters different than classic arena shooters (which aren't dead btw) and comparing all of them on a 1 v 1 basis.
If 1 v 1 encounters and individual player skill matter so much to you, why the hell are you playing Planetside?
|
I'm sorry but you are incorrect.
yes comparing the skills required is silly. why do you think no proffesional player has come over to a modern fps? why do they all find them so trash? they claim they are always on the lookout for the next competetive fps but they laugh at the mention of what fps games has become, how basic and shallow they are.
a game made 16 years ago is less simple and somehow less outdated than your games (deal with it). battlefield 3 got a 7.3, its just not a very good game (and I assume these are mainly votes from the low expectation casual players), and lets not get started with
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/ca...dern-warfare-3
meanwhile look at gems like
http://www.metacritic.com/game/pc/re...nemy-territory, and quake live got an 8.6 and was released TEN years after q3. try doing that with your modern fps.
I still dont understand if you want to keep claiming todays games are more difficult like you did in your first post?
and having more guns to learn the exact stats of doesent equal depth. just slapping in more guns that are just about identical where the only difficulty is slapping on some random stats and waiting till the players complain about balance and switching them around a bit.
of course 32v32 plays differently than 1v1, whats this argument about?
is this an attempt at saying its superior because it was built for a larger amount of players?
BF3 doesent even have a competetive scene and from almost all opinions ive read, doesent deserve one.
you have more depth and interresting gameplay in quake ctf or quake teamfortress either way
and all this despite the modern fps games having 13 years of extra progress of all sorts on quake3
and im not playing ps1, hoping the netcode and such will be better this time because im longing for a good game
Originally Posted by Rbstr
I completely disagree that higher TTK increases skill gap.
It makes the DPS vs HP equation far more pronounced while devaluing any individual shot because each landed shot means less in aggregate and lowering the effects of front-loaded damage. It makes the element of surprise less important in order to facilitate reprisal action.
It's simply shifts to different skills. With low TTK you don't need "prolonged aiming" - you need to aim at the beginning and hit sooner. You don't need to dive for cover when someone hits you, you need to not get hit in the first place. You don't need to run around to dodge bullets, you need to run around in order to surprise and confuse.
It is only a personal preference thing. Stop pretending otherwise.
|
it takes less skill because of devaluing individual shots?
if it takes a thousand shots to kill someone, how often do you think a guy that hits 28% of his shots will win over a guy who hits 30% of his shots?
and if it takes one shot to kill someone?
yes the first shot will matter more, and whats the point of that?
suprise is a matter of silly camping. and surprising will just gain you a smaller edge, will have no real effect on lessening skill gap
its not a preference thing, obviously it has effects of different quantities depending on how you change them around and how the game plays overall.
Linear Mode
