News: Jimmy Whisenhunt Joins PlanetSide 2 Team

[Seagoon]

Originally Posted by Bags

If you can't hit someone who is spamming ADADA why are you playing a shooter?

If ADAD does not impact the game in anyway when fighting skilled opponents, why do so many skilled players do it ?

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Seagoon

If ADAD does not impact the game in anyway when fighting skilled opponents, why do so many skilled players do it ?

Because the netcode in PS1 is shit.

[ThermalReaper]

Because it sometimes works.

[Seagoon]

Originally Posted by Bags

Because the netcode in PS1 is shit.

Then surely I dont need to spell out the chain of logic to prove that your post was rather pointless and simply inflammatory?

Anyway, where does one draw the line between exploit and 'feature'.

Im not on the side that says that every bug that can be taken advantage of is detrimental to the game, for example star craft 1's skill ceiling was segnificantly raised by the adoption of many such bugs into competitive play.

However, PS1's netcode issues were somthing that were random and could rather frequently swing a fight in one sides favour with no skill that could counter.

So, with many of the highly skilled players here having taken advantage of this issue, now claiming that they want fair play of a highly skillful nature, are the arguements here (as valid as they are) being presented to the full benifit of the game, or to produce a game that provides the perfect combination of skills to firmly sit them in their comfort zone while simultainously pushing other potential rivals out of theirs ?

EDIT: This is not an attack on anyone, just a concern that maybe, the skillful players who have the skill, experiance and intelligence to actually provide useful feedback to the developers might be a bit too focused on making the game the best enviroment for them to play and succeed rather than the best game PS2 could be.

[BillyBob]

Originally Posted by zomg

Hah, in that case we could probably call all games dumbed down...

You are exactly right there. In ArmA things still require skill and you are rewarded for learning the way ArmA works.

Sidearms are generally not used past the ranges where they are effectively accurate But yeah, other weapons would have their own limitations as well.

As for the remainder of your post, quite agreed with that. I see we do agree in most respects with this; With my posts I mostly just wanted to point out that he seems very much capable of finding how these important aspects show in the game and working with the general idea on how to make them feel better.

Yeah, I can certainly see where you're coming from and while our view may differ on some details, it seems to me we are generally on the same page.

Originally Posted by Fek

CS is universally regarded as one of the greatest tactical team based shooters of all time (maybe XBOX kiddies and those too close-minded to recognise quality in any game except those they play disagree).

I'm sure you CS-kiddies regard it as that, but obviously REAL MEN play games like ArmA and Americas Army.

Originally Posted by Fek

All the greatest FPS games have had both a high personal skill ceiling and team skill ceiling. If the original PS1 devs had taken inspiration from the gunplay of games around at the time then I reckon it would still be seriously popular today.

I totally agree about your "high personal skill ceiling", and as far as I'm concerned the high end of that skill-spectrum starts with games like ArmA, Americas Army and then moves down to BF3 and having games like CS and Unreal at the very opposite end.

My point is that this is all just about opinions...you have yours and I have mine. In the end, the only truly relevant question is: what style of gameplay will be right for PS2?

That's obviously up to the devs to decide, but I can tell you this much: If PS2 turns out as a game where bunny hopping is a viable type of gameplay and you can fire accurately from the hip at anything past 5-10 meters...let alone being able to pull off headshots from that range without having to ADS and stabilizing your aim, then I can say for a simple fact that I won't touch this game with a 5-foot pole and I'm pretty sure I'm not alone. Why? Because according to my opinion such gameplay would make the game extremely dumbed-down and would not require what I consider to be proper skills.

A game putting you in a combat situation should IMO feel like a combat situation, which is what ArmA, Americas Army and yes, even BF3, does to a MUCH greater extent than CS. In fact, CS is so far removed from anything even remotely resembling a true combat situation, that you may as well be playing as an Elf or Orc equipped with magic wands...that's how close I consider it to be to 100% Fantasy.

And here's the real kicker: My viewpoint or preference is NO less valid or does NOT require any less skill than yours in ANY way whatsoever.

Please understand that simple fact and stop acting like everyone who is able to cope with these semi-realistic conditions and limitations are noobs, just because you obviously lack the skills (as I measure them) required to do so.

So, thanks for your input and have fun continuing playing "Zap the Bunny Hopping Elves" (i.e. CS)!

/BB

PS: Apologies for this little rant, but the obvious nonsense expressed in some posts here just can't be allowed to pass without "correction".

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Seagoon

So, with many of the highly skilled players here having taken advantage of this issue, now claiming that they want fair play of a highly skillful nature, are the arguements here (as valid as they are) being presented to the full benifit of the game, or to produce a game that provides the perfect combination of skills to firmly sit them in their comfort zone while simultainously pushing other potential rivals out of theirs ?

I see nothing wrong with keeping a game skillful so only the skilled are good at it. Though, that won't happen because all games are being made so everyone wins now a days.

Though I do not want the PS1 netcode to return, and it isn't.

[GreatMazinkaise]

PS: Apologies for this little rant, but the obvious nonsense expressed in some posts here just can't be allowed to pass without correction.

Obvious nonsense: hitting a slow moving target with a gun that has near perfect accuracy is as skilled as hitting a fast moving target with a gun that has tolerable accuracy while also moving are equivalent in skill. That's a fallacy.

The former is not skill equivalent to the latter.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Seagoon

Then surely I dont need to spell out the chain of logic to prove that your post was rather pointless and simply inflammatory?

Anyway, where does one draw the line between exploit and 'feature'.

Im not on the side that says that every bug that can be taken advantage of is detrimental to the game, for example star craft 1's skill ceiling was segnificantly raised by the adoption of many such bugs into competitive play.

However, PS1's netcode issues were somthing that were random and could rather frequently swing a fight in one sides favour with no skill that could counter.

So, with many of the highly skilled players here having taken advantage of this issue, now claiming that they want fair play of a highly skillful nature, are the arguements here (as valid as they are) being presented to the full benifit of the game, or to produce a game that provides the perfect combination of skills to firmly sit them in their comfort zone while simultainously pushing other potential rivals out of theirs ?

EDIT: This is not an attack on anyone, just a concern that maybe, the skillful players who have the skill, experiance and intelligence to actually provide useful feedback to the developers might be a bit too focused on making the game the best enviroment for them to play and succeed rather than the best game PS2 could be.

It's important to take design intention into account. I also use the rule that if I was in the game, would the action be effective. Taking away netcode, standing in the open and stepping side to side would get me killed. running or jumping while shooting would severely decrease my accuracy. etc.

I appreciate that you're not being condescending or malicious with your post. Its the difference between a discussion and an argument. Nothing gets solved in an argument...

[GameCobra]

Granted, i loved Unreal Tournament. The original one, and yes: Facing Worlds was fun with the gigantic towers and all =P

But my cousin enjoyed playing on the sniper servers so much. I'm trying to encourage him to play PS2 when it comes out since i'm sure he'll love sniping armies of people =P

[GuyFawkes]

Originally Posted by Seagoon

Anyway, where does one draw the line between exploit and 'feature'.

So, with many of the highly skilled players here having taken advantage of this issue, now claiming that they want fair play of a highly skillful nature, are the arguements here (as valid as they are) being presented to the full benifit of the game, or to produce a game that provides the perfect combination of skills to firmly sit them in their comfort zone while simultainously pushing other potential rivals out of theirs ?

Unfortunately this is where the fact this is a MMO comes in. Things get tweaked and balanced to and fro. The dev team tries to find the right balance and will never find a point where both ends of the spectrum agree to disagree. Its a fine balance.

Same goes with the exploit and feature thing. It used to be there was no pain field in a spawn room and people would camp all day spawn camping people. It was exploiting a feature of the game. It was cheesy, but not illegal. So they added pain fields to try to discourage it.

Someone warping through a ceiling using surge pre-nerf might be put down to netcode similar to adada. I'm sure it was abused intentionally by many. But post surge nerf those that were good players were still good without it. Those that were bad and just abused a mechanic quickly exposed themselves as such.

[Peacemaker]

I wonder how long it's going to take for this thread to become post after post of "NO! Your wrong!"

[Fek]

If PS2 turns out as a game where bunny hopping is a viable type of gameplay

Someone else that clearly doesn't have a clue about one particular mechanic in one particular game in one particular engine 13 years ago but feels they are expert on it.

A game putting you in a combat situation should IMO feel like a combat situation, which is what ArmA, Americas Army and yes, even BF3 does to a MUCH greater extent than CS.

Cross posting from another thread......


Struggling to take the rest of the post seriously after that...........but will try.

as far as I'm concerned the high end of that skill-spectrum starts with games like ArmA, Americas Army and then moves down to BF3 and having games like CS and Unreal at the very opposite end.

Claiming BF3 has a higher skill ceiling than UT? Seems like a troll, but I'll bite.

In reality if you were to plot a chart with realism on the x-axis and skill on the y-axis for games that exist today, it would probably be a V-shape. Unlike you I have actually played a wide selection of fps games, including mil sims like FH2 and PR, which require high amounts of skill. Most of it is in the vast amounts of team communication and coordination required. Personally I find the extremely diminished importance of aim, reactions and the slow pace in the implementation of strategies less enjoyable than arcade games, but as you say, that's personal difference.

Failing to recognise that there is skill in arcade games such as CS, UT, Quake, BF2 etc. i.e. thinking that good aim and reactions are not real skill or that these games somehow require no teamwork or strategy, simply makes you look dumb and ignorant.

What most of the "pro-arcade" people in this thread are arguing is that they want "skill" in PS2 to encompass as many different elements as possible, ranging from second to second handling of gun all the way to the grand strategy of coordinating the actions of hundreds of players, and everything in between.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Peacemaker

I wonder how long it's going to take for this thread to become post after post of "NO! Your wrong!"

I hope it's dying down now. I didn't mean to start a debacle, I just saw a fight that needed to be picked.

[zomg]

I'm just going to leave this here.

[BillyBob]

Originally Posted by GreatMazinkaise

Obvious nonsense: hitting a slow moving target with a gun that has near perfect accuracy is as skilled as hitting a fast moving target with a gun that has tolerable accuracy while are equivalent in skill. That's a fallacy.

The former is not skill equivalent to the latter.

Obvious nonsense: Your attempt at comparison by overly simplifying the conditions and variables involved. That's a fallacy.

- What is a "slow" or "fast" moving target compared to what?

- What is "near perfect accuracy" or "tolerable accuracy" compared to what?

Allow me to make a valid yet simple comparison for you:

The actual skill required in a game like ArmA is NO less than the skill required in CS. The focus on what type of skills are most important is merely different.

Hope that helped!

/BB