Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Pickup Timers

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by CC- View Post
    Part of the appeal is gluing your appendices together.
    If this is the case, then it's all the more reason (beyond 11 of the last 13 posts of poorly communicated non-sense) why I'd just advocate creating a new game type. DM is established. I'm sure we can cook up another bonding agent that isn't glue.

    Due to the esoteric, and tedious nature of the mechanics this idea is trying to address, designing a more entertaining game type with this ones flaws in mind, should not be difficult. Just leave DM in tact for the DMers.

    If they want their game type to grow, they will have to figure out how to get more people to even understand that control is even a thing. If that means coaching, and putting together draft leagues, or writing up guides in hopes people care enough to google for it, then so be it. Either way, the ball in apparently in their court. The parameters are set. Epic has good reasons for not liking tutorials. If they can't figure out a way to convey in game that these mechanics even exist, then the past shall repeat.

    Either that or Epic will do what they feel is best based on the merits of the argumentation. There's no point in emotional rants, or flames.
    Originally posted by Mysterial
    An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

    Comment


    • heeeey now. (no flaming or reported, plz). we can do a great job of improving the outcome of these forum talks if we stop trying to talk about things we dont know. if, as individuals add to a discussion we have experience in amd thought about and now have revwlant contribution. i do.love that. but whenever we find ourselves taljing avout tgibga what we uavent a clue about. trouble? more like on my way! thanks in advance.

      Comment


      • I'm open minded with whatever options truly matter when it comes to growing the communities size. I'm close minded to ridiculous speculation and statements like "Spawn protection will keep tens of thousands of players playing Unreal."

        DM can be pure, or it can be changed. I'm merely sharing my opinion, and stated valid examples that removing the timing and control aspect of deathmatch actually removes a lot of the strategic nature of deathmatch in the first place. There's a lot more to timing than simple math. Extremely good players can control a game or a map in a duel and make it so that the opponent doesn't have proper timing on multiple weapons on top of major powerups.

        I'm also open to different standards of play being offered to different skillsets of players. It's not like Little League baseball is offered with 90 foot base-paths, 400 foot fences, 60'6" between pitcher and catcher, leading off, headfirst slides, an accurate strike zone... etc.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Chocks
          Thank you for the explanation.

          While my example may have been bad, yours was excellent.

          The thing is, none of the strategy in the example would change if both players knew the timing for the major items on the map as a given. As a matter of opinion (and this is only my opinion) the game would have been a lot more fun to play and to watch if both players could have just focused on their very interesting/tactical strategy and not have had to give much thought to calculating and remembering a bunch of numbers in their head. Its mundane and laborious.
          People will still need to control other items regardless (shock, vials, LG), whether by intuition or manually timing, so that part of the game can't ever be completely eliminated, but the annoying nature of it could be reduced.

          Seriously, who enjoys timing? I've never heard anyone say "wow I cant wait to play so I can time 100 shield". People do it because it's the only way to be competitive.

          Look at the current hint system in the pre-alpha. Does everyone really think its a bad thing? I absolutely love it! when I go back to the previous games I can't help, but feel like a really great feature is missing. For me those timers are one of the biggest leaps forward in the whole UT franchise since inception. I just don't understand how anyone could have a problem with them.

          I will concede however that I seem to be the only one left arguing this point. Not only that, but people are getting angry at me for voicing my opinion. So I guess it might not be such a great idea after all (even tho I still think it is).

          Also, thank you for writing a civilised and respectful post. I do appreciate it considering how rare they are on these forums.
          No worries

          I can understand why timing seems tedious and from a certain perspective, particularly because of my being unable to time myself because I'm a retard (and that's me saying that).

          I think for many people it's one of those things that just becomes routine and downright pedestrian to do because they're so used to it and it's so ingrained into their playstyle, but also it shows that they've put a great (if not inordinate ) amount of time learning how to do it, and then making it a habit. It's hard stuff. The fact that they've put so much work into playing a game, to play it well, I believe is worthy of some respect, regardless of your personal feelings for timing and how it is used. At least, that is how I've always felt.

          I think for many players, when they want to step-up and be better at the game, learning things like the spawns, how to time, learning the the quickest route(s) to certain areas and items, smooth mouse movements when moving and aiming, shield jumps and the like, are considered a rite of passage. I think people at those sort of levels and higher have a mutual respect for one another because of that, although I know of a few individuals who would completely deny this line of thought.

          One of the reasons I've played UT2004 so long is that I've never been able to master it, or be satisfyingly decent at it. I love the skill curve, the depth and the amount of thought and analysis you have to put into it in order to become better at it, and I'm sure this goes part and parcel for the other UT games. Compare this to Call of Duty, where I've pretty much used the same playstyle and classes since Modern Warfare 2 and did really, really well. Same for Battlefield BC2 and 3. It just isn't as satisfying an experience. I'd hate for the franchise to lose this essence, but I don't want it (UT4) to be the Dark Souls of the multiplayer FPS world either.
          UT2004Community YouTube channel. A professional e-sports and community replay archive for Unreal Tournament 2004.

          Cluex.org YouTube channel. A video archive of our UT2004 competitive events and tournaments.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CC- View Post
            I'm open minded with whatever options truly matter when it comes to growing the communities size. I'm close minded to ridiculous speculation and statements like "Spawn protection will keep tens of thousands of players playing Unreal."

            DM can be pure, or it can be changed. I'm merely sharing my opinion, and stated valid examples that removing the timing and control aspect of deathmatch actually removes a lot of the strategic nature of deathmatch in the first place. There's a lot more to timing than simple math. Extremely good players can control a game or a map in a duel and make it so that the opponent doesn't have proper timing on multiple weapons on top of major powerups.

            I'm also open to different standards of play being offered to different skillsets of players. It's not like Little League baseball is offered with 90 foot base-paths, 400 foot fences, 60'6" between pitcher and catcher, leading off, headfirst slides, an accurate strike zone... etc.
            The people offering up these opinions are not new players either. They have been around for YEARS, which I think is worth mentioning.

            Comment


            • cafe that is important.
              i cherish you. as well as others. i do think open discussion is great! lets do this!(Ive always loved butch wilis!)

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Chocks View Post
                When I watch those videos you posted I think the matches would have been much more entertaining if both players knew exactly when the items were about to spawn at all times. It would have meant more strategy and meaningful confrontation around the major items.

                Timing creates periods in the match which are boring to watch and to play.
                For me the most interesting in QL duels is mindplay rather than pure aiming skills. This mindplay is what makes QL duels to be a couple levels above any other arena shooter i had ocassion to watch. If not mindplay then Cypher would won everything, not just this year QuakeCon
                Unofficial Enforcer Model
                Redesigning Enforcer Firemodes

                Comment


                • QL/Q3 is a bit harder to control because of spawn times are staggered. For example, in UT2004, pretty much everything other than 100a in duel has a spawn time of 27 seconds. This creates more simple and patterned ways to control the maps. I think staggered spawn times would be great for real duel gameplay.

                  Comment


                  • just so there is no confusion, it's 27.5 seconds. but i think we get what you mean cc. most of us do i bet.

                    Comment


                    • Just for more confusion: it's 30s but 2.5 is for the respawn effect .

                      I still don't know why this is discussed. Someday, the devs won't even ship it as an optional feature. I'm pretty sure that competitive games will remove the timer but for public games (where you play with 10 players or more) or objective based games, a timer like Sly's concept worked and will work great. If it's gonna be a subtle text timer, i'm okay with it.
                      ] Map Scaler Tool | Betrayal for UT4 | No Spawn Protection | No Pickup Timer | BioLauncher (revived) | ForcePickupSpawn | Map cosmetics::P | Safe Spawn::P | Why numbers for Health/Armor suck!::ANALYSIS/CONCEPT
                      ] UT3 Addons: NoMoreDemoGuy | PickupRespawnTweak | Mutate Spec | MutePawnSounds | NoPlayerBeacon | Epic FTW | Epic FOCK | TripodSound (... and many more)

                      Comment


                      • yes

                        one of the most important things is timing pu's has nvr been a problem. in a duel youd nvr be more then.. 10sec off. and that generous. in team games ive nvr seen an issue as there are mulitple ppl yelling spawn times. ultimately wht is a newb that cant time gonna do knowing the 100 spawns in 3/4's of a cheesecake (which i love) from now. he can come back and then get killed. let's be honest..no, not one, upper teir player will utilize that glorious sun chart timer as they will already know when spawns.im just saying let's keep this talk on our assumptions of what newblorz will do. since we don't think like that let us just assume till our eyes bleed. or start with knowing we dont think like that way and that we are the masters so lets flippently decide. and before this post gets deleted i hope ppl see whT i mean is that its not easy for us to think for others. let's focus on the ramifications of these rediculous pu timers in regards to after that 2days before any half sane peraon would want them gone before we idealize something. maybe the beyondunreal ppl can chime in a bit more in this. not saying we can use their input why cant we at same time? lets just try and maybe feel out ppl that are new and don't play much what they have to say.
                        Last edited by orig_p; 09-23-2014, 08:21 PM. Reason: misspelling.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by CC- View Post
                          Extremely good players can control a game or a map in a duel and make it so that the opponent doesn't have proper timing on multiple weapons on top of major powerups.
                          Where as this would undeniably be removed by providing times in game in nearly any shape, form, or fashion (and I wouldn't miss it at all)...

                          Originally posted by CC- View Post
                          valid examples that removing the timing and control aspect of deathmatch actually removes a lot of the strategic nature of deathmatch in the first place.
                          You then slip it in the same post as a statement like this, where unless we have different definitions of the word "control", is patently false. So long as death match has the pickups, it will be about controlling them regardless of whether or not the player has to track times blindly, or with indication. All the listed times will do is take away ONE(1) strategy for controlling them, and that is coveting the spawn timing information.

                          We're not trying to remove control. We're actually trying to make more people aware of it.

                          Originally posted by CC- View Post
                          There's a lot more to timing than simple math.
                          Another statement I firmly agree with, and the only reason why I would advocate attempting to remove the need to do said simple math.
                          Originally posted by Mysterial
                          An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

                          Comment


                          • Ah... We are still at the exact same arguments than one month ago , everything was explained in page 6 (i mean exactly the same aspects). Always by the same ppl =( ... That's nice to see famous players like CCarl, commenting with facts and examples, i did it so and ramses and conX5 too and many more before...
                            It's i think, maybe a ""little""" thing to be noted that it's the more experienced players that have a deeper understanding of the mechanic (of timing and everything that goes around more than "just doing simple math duh") and thousands of hours to play under that greatly punitive Damocles sword being sometimes detrimental to them, that defend it. Also, that is still ppl that barely have an objective glimpse of everything implied in "timing" , that of course, want to simplify it =( ...

                            https://forums.unrealtournament.com/...p-Timers/page6
                            Last edited by Lwlf; 09-24-2014, 06:51 AM.
                            Official Cod3r Hero: RattleSN4K3!!!
                            Official Weapon Designer Hero: Gooba!!!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by -AEnubis- View Post
                              Originally posted by Lwlf View Post
                              You feel like all the DIRECT bridges and hints already given to them are not enough.
                              No, it's that I understand that there are no direct bridges or hints. Only indirect ones.

                              There is nothing direct about timing. That's what implicit means, and it's a spot on, perfect adjective for the mechanic.
                              To be fair, this still hasn't been addressed.

                              I'm content with making a game type that kills DM. Epic probably isn't. Those of us who are aware of this "problem" and are willing and trying to bounce ideas around to fix it, are trying to compromise. There comes a point in time though, where the avid defenders of the game type's dynamics preservation would have the proverbial ball in their court, and start offering up potential solutions that fall within what they consider to be acceptable parameters.

                              This isn't happening.

                              From an analytical argumentation observation standpoint, it would seem like the very "Stockholm syndrome" I previously mentioned. If you're just in a stance of denial that this is a problem then that makes it difficult to give the benefit of the doubt that the esoteric nature of the mechanic is exactly what's being defended, and not the dynamics it actually creates.

                              So to ask it directly:

                              Is it the esoteric nature of the mechanic that is appealing to you, or is it really that fine of a line where finding a way to make it less esoteric is detrimental to the mechanic itself? If that is the case should we be analyzing more the relationship between the mechanic and it's elusiveness? Do we really want a mechanic that thrives on people not knowing about it? Or can someone from the competitive dueling community come up with a way to DIRECTLY convey to the players in game that this information is crucial to achieving the games goals, without giving them too much information?
                              Originally posted by Mysterial
                              An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

                              Comment


                              • If you ask me, the concept of being able to see when the weapon is respawned is good, but how it's shown, is the problem. I don't like the idea that an icon is hovering in my vision, telling me or campers when the weapon is respawned. It's too 'easy', and if this idea will be well received other game developers will find a way to improve this, and this good concept's idea should be as good as it's implementation. Unreal never chose the 'easy' way, but the most elegant ones, and this isn't elegant.

                                This being said, my criticism should constructive, and not just a lament, and i think i know a great alternate suggestion for this. The last couple of Unreals usually had spawning pads beneath the weapons, why not make a couple of animated robot arms come out and put a weapon together and hold it up for the player to pick up when it's done? And when the weapon is grabbed, one arm goes down and grabs the new parts while the other arms assemble and/or weld it together. Downside is, this will take up a lot of animation and attention for detail...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X