News: Jimmy Whisenhunt Joins PlanetSide 2 Team

[ODonnell]

I just don't see PS2 being an e-sports type event. Neuter team sizes down and maybe it could, but from a team oriented standpoint you are looking at needing much higher payouts to be worth competing. If you could swing that then maybe you could starting talking about it being an esports event.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by AzK

You didn't make any point, i didn't say i didn't play q3, i just said i didn't play it professionaly as i knew it was not a realistic option for me at the time, that didn't stop me from playing the game normally though, and being far better than average. If i were you, i probably wouldn't have played at all because the thought about facing people more "trained" than me and that i couldn't have beaten no matter what, would have been unacceptable. I'll tell you an amazing secret, even when/if you do play professionally, there's always going someone better than you sooner or later.

So, with that in mind, having the fact that "there's gonna be pro people in a game that are going to be better than you" sap your will to play/enjoy something is a bit laughable.

No. You openly proclaim that arcade shooters have some semblance of skill based on tactics (which noone is arguing with), but that the true skill of that game comes from being able to "aim" and move correctly (noone is arguing that either). What is laughable is that you refuse to admit that for a game like PS2, the opposite is true; the major skill being placed on tactics and the shooter aspect being a second (and therefor more basic). That doesn't mean the game takes no skill, it means it requires a different skillset than what you're used to. PS2 looks like PS1 with some updated FPS features and that's exactly how it should be.

Now, for the sake of the topic at hand, can we just drop this?

[Seagoon]

Originally Posted by AzK

You can't possibly think to compare the aim/twich/movement skill required to play a game like ut or quake to the aim/twich/movement skill required to play a game where people are 1) much slower 2) are basically ALWAYS still or turretting prone or in ads mode when shooting each others, and 3)weapons have random factors not controlled by players.

It is quite obvious that the former type of games have a much higher skillcap when it comes to the aim/twich/movement personal level of the player. It's just the way it is, i'm sorry.

Well you can certainly compare them, but aim/twitch/movement skill are a bit more complicated than they seem, they are not skills in and of themselves but actually packages of more specific skills that are combined together to make discussion of them easier, however it mus allways be in mind that they are not the same packages depending on what game is being played.

For example, aiming in a game with hitscan weapons is a different package of skills compared to aiming in a game that takes into account bullet drop and projectile velocity. Infact, this can be broken down by weapon choice as well within the game, a hit scan weapon has a lower overall skill ceiling than a weapon which has projectile velocity.

As to if I can say which games have the higher overall skill cap, that depends on the games in question, you talk about UT and quake, but never mention a game to compare them with, I presume you mean BF3 or CS or ARMA?

Honestly, with out playing them side by side for a period of time, I could not give a good answer. I would say that BF3 indeed does have a lower skill cap as far as aiming goes, movement for sure as well, but twitch I would say is about the same, BF3 benifits from twitch just as much as UT does.

I could spend ages going through which is better and which is worse and why and how they are different, but its not very important I dont think.
Im not defending or advocating any of these games.

Originally Posted by AzK

So to answer your question yes, tactical thinking and situational awareness are a constant, the actual gameplay mechanics aren't. And games like ut or quake have a much higher skillcap in that regard as opposed to "camper" games.

Now this is more important, it has direct implications for PS2.

I can say that the idea that between any two games named, they will have the same skill cap in tactical thinking, situational awareness and coordination is just silly.

Compare Project Reality (a BF2 total conversion*) to UT, project reality is a game involving combined arms gameplay (Air, Armour and infantry) as well as logistics/support opperations and a heavy focus on large scale (64 to 200+ player) battles coordinated via a command chain. It is silly to think that Project Reality is as tactically or strategically simplistic as a UT 1 v 1 match. The situational awareness also blows UT out of the water, having to keep track of not only the other members in your squad, but also the positons of a wide variety of different unit types across a 4KM square map which could even be a largely urban enviroment, its again rather silly to presume that this game is on equal grounds with UT as far as situational awareness goes.

Now this is not me stating that UT does not require any tactics, it does, but the over all skill cap for these things is lower than it is for Project Reality or simmilar games.

All skills are created equal, the only thing that decides otherwise is the games design itself. PS2 has the potential to alow for a high skill cap in all of these skills, and as I said before, the more skills you have to master, the higher the over all skill cap is AND if the skills are equally promoted with in the game design, it produces a game with a skill cap that exceeds the sum of its parts.

With this in mind, we should be aiming for PS2 to no promote any one set of FPS skills, but all of them for the betterment of PS2 and for the betterment of ourselves as competitive players, the more skills we master, the better we are, no denying that.

* dont let the battlefield heritage fool you, this game is almost entirely different, hence the total conversion title, it even has modified what it can of the engine to produce gameplay of its own. It has far more depth than any real BF title ever had.

EDIT: sorry for the bad structure and spelling.

[Pyreal]

I'm glad Jimmy is on the team!

I was gunning in the Mag last night, and with all the pewpew I couldn't even tell if I was firing or EMPed!

The discharge sound is like a bug hitting a zapper outside the window.

[Otleaz]

Originally Posted by AzK

It wasn't a player attack, i was merely stating a fact that emerged from the guy repeatedly self owning reply after reply, in a funny way. Being a bad or average player isn't something someone should feel insulted for, i don't have a problem with bad players, i even help them if i can, but when on top of being bad they act all arrogant and shit, pretending to know about stuff they clearly don't, then they're annoying. I merely called the guy out on his bs.

He on the other hand, not being able to reply anything relevant on the matter, because there wasn't really anything he could have said in reply, went on on attacking me for my faction and assuming on things i never even discussed in this thread (tr being easy mode compared to nc or whatever).

The difference between the 2 "attacks" is simple. And that's not counting that the former was based on reality while the latter completely made up.

It wasn't irrelevant at all. I was implying that it is typical of NC players to think something works because it takes skill when it doesn't. Bunny hopping might be a valid tactic in a LAN game, but in online play it is simply exploiting and bad game design.

You keep calling me bad if you like, but it is hard for me to take someone who is obviously in denial seriously. You fit in with the NC quite well.

[Ratstomper]

Originally Posted by Seagoon

With this in mind, we should be aiming for PS2 to no promote any one set of FPS skills, but all of them for the betterment of PS2 and for the betterment of ourselves as competitive players, the more skills we master, the better we are, no denying that.

EDIT: sorry for the bad structure and spelling.

You're fine. It was legible and made a lot of sense. My only concern with twitchy gameplay (one of the aforementioned styles of FPS) isn't the typical 90% of twitch type gameplay, it's the 10% that takes a lot of tedious practice to be good with (wisenhunt used the example of practicing for inordinate amounts of time to sidestep perfectly). At what point do you alienate part of your potentially paying fanbase because one of the aspects of the game is something that wasn't necessarily intended by the devs, but is being used to great effect and the average player doesn't have the time or patience to dedicate hours to tedious practicing? At what point does it start being detrimental to the game as a whole? At what point does the game stop being a game and start being a job?

Originally Posted by Otleaz

You fit in with the NC quite well.

Easy, tiger.

We're a little beyond poking fun about faction loyalty.

[Otleaz]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

Easy, tiger.

We're a little beyond poking fun about faction loyalty.

It is hard not to when almost every NC player follows their stereotype like it is the bible.

[AzK]

Originally Posted by Ratstomper

No. You openly proclaim that arcade shooters have some semblance of skill based on tactics (which noone is arguing with), but that the true skill of that game comes from being able to "aim" and move correctly (noone is arguing that either). What is laughable is that you refuse to admit that for a game like PS2, the opposite is true; the major skill being placed on tactics and the shooter aspect being a second (and therefor more basic). That doesn't mean the game takes no skill, it means it requires a different skillset than what you're used to. PS2 looks like PS1 with some updated FPS features and that's exactly how it should be.

Now, for the sake of the topic at hand, can we just drop this?

First of all, i didn't say that being able to aim and move corrently is the true skill factor of those games (ut/quake/etc), if anything i said that it's just as important as the tactical aspect, and then i proceeded to say that however, the aim and movement factor in those games has a far higher skillcap compared to "camper" shooters, which is also undeniable. That's what i said.

You see, what you don't seem to understand/know about my "personal skill set" is that i have both. In ps1 i relied more on tactical awareness, not dying, and playing the situations to my advantage, the more odds i could stack in my favor the better, people hated me and called me lame or even a shit player for that. The game was no quake (post surge nerf) and you couldn't exactly single handedly face to face gun down people 1v10 anymore so i stopped doing that when it was no longer possible.

Yeah, tactics probably played a bigger role than aim in ps1, but not to the point that a terrible player could kill a very good one hands down. Which is what happens in games like cod or bf3.

And more importantly, a player that only has tactics on his side, will lose against another who has tactics (knows what he should be doing) + is also skilled (is actually able to do what he knows he should be doing, in a successful way).

I don't want to play a game where bad people are rewarded just because they know what they should be doing. They also need to be proficient at doing it.

A gunplay that tends to bf3's direction, makes the actual execution of what you're doing almost irrelevant, and that is BAD gameplay design. And that is why i'd rather push for the total opposite.

[Zar]

I've been posting and ghosting this thread for a bit now and what i find funny is even if this game had some sort of e sport not a soul would care minus the 6-15 fellow's here pushing it *choice A*: join a battle with 2000 people with open ended Massive open world combat with tanks and air craft. *Choice B*: play in a 1 mile by 1 mile box with 16-32-64 people with limited tanks and aircraft..... >.> <.< ill take choice A!

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

It is hard not to when almost every NC player follows their stereotype like it is the bible.

The NC has a stereotype?

[SKYeXile]

I doubt PS2 will ever be an Esport, if it want to be that there would need to be whole other game modes and maps designed especially for it with little bearing on how the rest of PS2 played, so they would have to make it another game mode for people to practise. PS2 can defiantly be competitive, but not an esport.

[Otleaz]

Originally Posted by Bags

The NC has a stereotype?

Yes, you could point them out quite easily even if their icon wasn't in the top right of their posts.

[Zar]

Originally Posted by Bags

The NC has a stereotype?

rebellious nature and problem's with authority?

[AzK]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

It wasn't irrelevant at all. I was implying that it is typical of NC players to think something works because it takes skill when it doesn't. Bunny hopping might be a valid tactic in a LAN game, but in online play it is simply exploiting and bad game design.

You keep calling me bad if you like, but it is hard for me to take someone who is obviously in denial seriously. You fit in with the NC quite well.

Bunny hopping doesn't have anything to do with ping and netcode, also, battlefield games don't have bunny hopping, that's right, none of them does. While you seem to think they do, since you mentioned 2142, so forgive me if it is I who have troubles taking you seriously.

[Bags]

Originally Posted by Otleaz

Yes, you could point them out quite easily even if their icon wasn't in the top right of their posts.

Doubtful as I was a TR main in PS1. My highest level character and only CR5 is TR.

Originally Posted by Zar

rebellious nature and problem's with authority?

I didn't pick NC for PS2 based on the game's terrible lore, I picked NC because they look the best this time IMO. the NC could be terrorists who murdered babies for shits n giggles in the lore and I wouldn't have cared.