What would make people play arena FPS games again. Thoughts from non arenafps players

[3Dmatic]

When I look at the feedback given by the community... When I look at the current state of the game or its development...
I can only get the impression that UT, Epic and the community are all stuck in time somewhere between 1998 and 2002.
So many great multiplayer games came out between now and then...

• Golden Eye
• Perfect Dark
• Counter-Strike Source/Global Offensive
• Battlefield 2
• Battlefield 2142
• Battlefield: Bad Company 2
• Team Fortress 2
• Halo 2
• Halo 5
• Halo: ODST
• F.E.A.R.
• Return to Castle Wolfenstein
• Splinter Cell: Pandora Tomorrow, Spies VS Mercenaries
• Shadowrun (2007)
• Quake 3 Arena/ Quake Live
• Brink
• Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
• Delta Force: Black Hawk Down
• Soldier of Fortune 2: Double Helix
• Pariah
• Time Splitters
• Chivalry
• Mass Effect 3
• Gears of War
• UT2k4
• Killzone 2
• Rainbow Six Vegas 2
• MAG
• Tribes
• Warsow
• And much more that I probably forgot...

Each one of those games brought something really great to the table and something really bad. A glimpse into the future and taught us things that we should not repeat. Much like UT3, I'm not sure what lessons UT4 took from all those games listed above. But the game sure looks, visually, amazing.

Hopefully, we'll get there at some point.

[enioentity]

Okay, heartfelt post incoming...

I love UT and I used to play the hell out of it in highschool. I still love the story and universe and world, but I really REALLY don't enjoy playing UT right now. There is absolutely nothing drawing me into playing UT versus other games, and I can pretty much sum the reason up to an anecdote:

So, I was playing Rocket League the other day, it was actually the first time I had EVER played it. I sucked at it, like, I sucked HARD at this game. I played for hours online and could not win a single game... A SINGLE GAME. I was getting owned, accidentally scoring goals on myself, completely missing shots, getting 5-0 dominated, matched up with MUCH higher level players.. Basically four or five hours of me getting DESTROYED. Four or five hours filled with 5-minute matches: NONE of which I was on the winning team. Literally NOT A SINGLE MATCH.

This is very similar to my experience with UT. I lose all the time. In my time with UT I have NEVER been on top of the scoreboard. That not a figure of speech, check my stats; I have never won a game. I get dominated and embarrassed every time I play.

The difference between Rocket League and UT? I still want to play Rocket League. Every time I lost a match in rocket league, I wanted to play another match. Every time I got completely humiliated in under 5 minutes: I wanted to try again. I was having fun losing. Let me repeat that so it sinks in:

I was having fun while losing




Compare that with UT. I'll fire up UT out of an obligation because I kind of feel like I have to: then I hop online and get destroyed and I don't want to play any more. I did not have fun. I know the maps, I know the pickups, I know the rules and the movement. I simply don't have fun. The only times I've had fun in UT is while I was on the 'giving' end of punishment. When I get the rare drop on someone or when I was on the winning team. UT is only fun if you're winning, which means 50% of most team games are filled with players who aren't having fun, and FFA games are MOSTLY people who aren't enjoying themselves.

"Lol get good, noob"

Sure, but why? Why when I can play other games that make me want to play even when I get my *** handed to me? Why waste my time trying to 'get gud' in a game that is not at all enjoyable, when I could put in hours in a game that I actually have fun with? It has nothing to do with skill, it has everything to do with game feel.

Well isn't the point in playing with better players to get better(when game progresses you will see more people with varying skill, there will always be noobs, medium and pro players to be matched with)? You can't really progress if you don't get challenged! EVERY game i was starting i was a noob i got my azz handed to me, i played the game if i liked it( was not a quitter, easiest thing is to call it quits) and i got better. I believed that i will improve, and improve i did. It is glorious when you manage all the obstacles and rise! No one was born a pro, you become a one if you desire it enough. I can't do it, does not exist in my book! Play, have fun, results WILL come!!

[-=Reclaimer=-]

Long time UT veteran here. Honestly arena shooters never died they have just evolved and have jumped platforms. I'd argue UT's population has not gone mainstream, because the mainstream have moved onto console shooters, and incorporated unique features and strategies to keep players coming back for more. The competition, the modding, the features are all still present in 2016, they've just moved into games such as Halo 5. I use Halo 5 as my example because its what I am currently playing at the moment. With Halo 5 I can join up with friends instantly, we can jump into a lobby with 100% enterprise backed dedicated servers and game on. Skill based matchmaking, seasonal ranks, constant support from developers, fluid movement controls, engaging custom maps and game modes from the community. Its a type of arena shooter that is very easy pick up and learn. Anyone can jump into this game and find their nitch. Its an arena shooter but has features that don't really exist on the PC, at least not without going through a lot of hassle.

While FPS on PC is still very much active, it doesn't offer the community experiences and support structures that console shooters do in my experience. I'll most likely wipe the dust off my wallet and upgrade my aging desktop for this UT build when it gets close to a final state. But I don't foresee UT or any PC FPS shooter getting the type of large fan bases you are seeing on consoles. Not unless it can match the features being offered by some of the big AAA titles, while bringing its own unique gameplay and style to the table. UT hasn't done that since 2004 in my opinion.

[phantaci]

A story mode lol.
I hate CoD and Halo when it comes to multiplayer, but I always play the campaign.

[KazeoHin-TechAE]

Well isn't the point in playing with better players to get better(when game progresses you will see more people with varying skill, there will always be noobs, medium and pro players to be matched with)? You can't really progress if you don't get challenged! EVERY game i was starting i was a noob i got my azz handed to me, i played the game if i liked it( was not a quitter, easiest thing is to call it quits) and i got better. I believed that i will improve, and improve i did. It is glorious when you manage all the obstacles and rise! No one was born a pro, you become a one if you desire it enough. I can't do it, does not exist in my book! Play, have fun, results WILL come!!

I'm not *****ing about sucking, I'm saying that loosing on UT is not fun, while loosing in some other games is fun. Even you said "if I like it, I'll keep playing", like it = have fun.

[nubizZz]

Arena shooters are generally unforgiving, and ever thrived, and only survived off of one thing: being fun.

I fully agree with everything in that proj quote (as usual). That guy gets it.

I also agree with this gentleman's post (for a change ).

I was having fun while losing

Anecdote cropped, here I've agreed with two sentiments from players at the proverbial top and bottom of the skill range of players who enjoy these games.

I'm saying that loosing on UT is not fun, while loosing in some other games is fun.

I would add to this that winning isn't either. I actually have won a couple games, and they were not much less frustrating than loosing. This game simply isn't currently fun.

Match making is an effective way to cover up things that are inherently wrong with the game. Basically hiding exorbitant skill gaps, esoteric tactics, and often times exploitable issues within different skill tiers. As the aforementioned "chicken and egg" issue of player count exists, match making cannot bridge that gap, as it requires that egg to hatch. Match making won't work without many players.

How do we get the ball rolling?

Counter play. Good counter play is ultimately what makes a game fun to lose. Too many people are playing these games to get good, or be better, and at some point in that progression, "fun" is superseded by accomplishment, and tossed to the way side. I can really offer no other explanation as to why timing is still supported as being as rewarding as it is, and that weapon play is going the path of "aim-centric" as these are the quickest ways to reward the player for practice. In this world, challenge is left solely up to the other player, not the game, and fun is seen purely as how far up that ladder you climb.

The primary counter play element in this game is the dodge. It's the simplest, most elegant thing. It makes movement more a deep skill than how proj put it, as "it's a skill you can get to a sufficient level and then not worry about too much again (in-combat movement is always going to be far less important than in-combat aiming skill anyways)." Assuming he's speaking within the context of Quake, this is what we should be running in the opposite direction of.

Make the dodge relevant. Make in combat movement a skill to master. Give the target time to react by making the bullet slower. Every projectile that moves slow enough to see, and dodge inherently creates it's own counter play, and even if you lose an exchange, you'll feel good about every shot that you dodged. It also makes fragging more rewarding by requiring prediction, and increasing the challenge of even shooting predictable targets. Reactive movement, not some choreographed dance.

There are also things that need to be accepted as defining of what an "Arena shooter" is. A level playing field is one of them. Arcade style. This is the antithesis of progression. This is at all possible only because of the aforementioned counter play. It has to be fun, without building anything. Not just player progression, but knowledge of the game, or skill either. Multiple game types are always good, offering variety in game play, and different elements to drive confrontation, but ultimately a shooter is defined by it's gun play. For arena shooters, no other game type displays this as freely as DM, and in DM timing serves a purpose. That said, the positive feedback loop that it creates doesn't have to be as severe, and could potentially be balanced a bit by another system that counter acts it. Ultimately though, aversion to this, is something that can be mitigated by scaling it's advantage back. Timing should still provide an advantage, but no where near as steep as it does. To keep the risk of being "predictable" in timing reasonable to the reward, increasing the inherent challenge of using the weapons (movement relevancy) will make that balance.

There isn't going to be a lot of margin for error on this, as Arena shooters are up against a lot, in terms of game design. There are all kinds of tricks used now to suck people in, and keep them around. A game has to be genuinely good to get away with not using these artificial draws. Fist we need genuinely good gun play.

[Quadj130]

I'm not *****ing about sucking, I'm saying that loosing on UT is not fun, while loosing in some other games is fun. Even you said "if I like it, I'll keep playing", like it = have fun.

In past UT titles weapons are more forgiving in nature which makes combat engagement more fun and rewarding. The crowd (including Epic devs) that supports "1 hit kill wonder weapons" have it blatantly wrong. I still remember back in the early 2000's when I was a new player in UT and having fun loosing matches and learning different combat strategies from studying my enemies weapon tactics. When players are not given at least chance to respond to an attack, the game is broken.

The game is broken.

[lo2dk]

Missing the point of the thread.
This about the genre and what's keeping so many players away, not the minor annoyances you have with UT4.

Also, about that word, "random"... As far as I've checked, the only weapons that use RNG are the Enforcer and the Flak.

You are right that most weapons are not random in their function per say. If you were to analyse them without the context of in a real life scenario --> on a server with moving enemies shooting back towards you.
Then yes they are not random.

That is also why I followed my comment up with comparing it with previous UT titles , because I knew someone might get offended by the word "random" and use it against me. Which is what you did when you said only Enforcer and Flak has a RNG. You took my sentance way too literally and technically. You actually dived down to the code lines behind the game to prove me only two weapons has randomness applied. I don't care about what code proves because this thread is what would attract none FPS players!

At the end of the day I think they want most of the same stuff in UT4, as hardcore oldtimer UT players want. Fun gameplay and the feeling of when they lose a in-game battle they think :
- Ah I could have avoided that If I had not moved so predictable
- He was simple the better player here and my aim or movement wasn't on his level.

Likewise if they win it they must think :
- I predicted my enemy would attack or escape that path and I punished him for it
- My better aiming or movement won me this battle

Instead everything feels blurred and hazed. Often the outcome of every battle (speaking DM/TDM) feels random. This problem may be less apparent in 1on1, I don't know. But I don't think 1on1 is what none FPS players are looking to play when they enter FPS.

[nubizZz]

If you were to analyse them without the context of in a real life scenario --> on a server with moving enemies shooting back towards you.

Even in said context these things aren't random. Everything done in game by a player is influenced by some aspect of the arena which can be perceived and predicted. That's kind of the point of the interaction between map design and control (timing).

"Things" seem random when there are simply too many "things" for a person to perceive, or keep up with, which will be different for most people. The speed of weapon fire currently leaves no margin for error. No twitch reactions, only anticipated avoidance. It almost completely eliminates reward for risk, and forces safe, boring game play and heavily practiced basic mechanics to be successful.

[richardboegli]

Simple: More ArenaFPS to be available on consoles.

Crossplay between console and PC would be ideal, so that console players can see how much better control scheme keyboard / mouse is and more people will convert over.

[richardboegli]

Simple: More ArenaFPS to be available on consoles.

Crossplay between console and PC would be ideal, so that console players can see how much better control scheme keyboard / mouse is and more people will convert over.

Well the rumour mill is ripe and this may actually become real...

After seeing a 'hint' on youtube from one of the developers saying how they will be announcing big news (UT coming to consoles) that will make people really happy (pfft right), and then seeing the patch notes and now this thread with it's myriad of complaints, I must say, you guys realize they're making this game a console game first now right? It's so bloody obvious to me... 15% larger hitboxes, RL tweaks, hell even the bugs scream console. It's pretty obvious what's happening. Look at the menu's ffs, do those look like mouse-centric menu's to you? lol

Surely this is just pure speculation?

This is great news if true.

Modulus care to provide a link to which YouTube clip you are referring to?

UT4 is a showcase for UE4 engine, so the more platforms it is on the better for Epic.

I'd love to see if they end up doing crossplay between PC and consoles as this is something I am very interested to see done well in an FPS as I'm working on this myself.

Mouse provides superior control for an FPS, so I'd like to see how they manage that too.

Console players will see how much better playing an FPS on PC is and will convert over. It's a WIN-WIN.

Flame me all you want, its fine. I am being serious.

[phantaci]

Simple: More ArenaFPS to be available on consoles.

Crossplay between console and PC would be ideal, so that console players can see how much better control scheme keyboard / mouse is and more people will convert over.

Not sure about that, we had KBM support on ps3 (UT3). KBM has a learning curve if you aren't used to it. I wanted to quit so many times. It's demoralizing being good with a controller and then coming to PC and having to relearn everything. Right now about 5 players from the console community now play UT4. Myself being one of them. That being said I do not see UT4 on console working. Not sure how they would implement slide or crouching. On console we couldn't crouch with a controller, (not enough buttons).

I always tell people epic should just make another Unreal Championship and let UC be for console and UT for pc.

And to see how we managed: you can just watch these videos lol:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zSCGn-Ojb2w

https://www.youtube.com/user/RockleeNinjaPenguin/videos

[Polaarius]

A proper matchmakeing is a must. Thats really the main thing that keeps me form playing. All the active servers i find is full of players beyond my league and for some reason i cant join beginner hubs.

[HenrikRyosa]

Well the rumour mill is ripe and this may actually become real...

Heh, brings back memories of my Cross-platform petition for UT3. The SQL of the signees is dead now so I won't bother linking to the page but here's what I wrote all dem years ago (nearly 10!)

The potential for great cross-platform play between PC's and console platforms such as the PS3 and XBOX360 already exists - while there can be technical barriers between XBOX and PC, at present nothing is stopping game developers from taking advantage of the compatibility between the PC, and the PS3, which can be equipped with a mouse and keyboard. With proper balancing, even analog controller users can play against PC users and filtering systems can be put in place to give players choice. The net result being a system where the community is not once again divided unnecessarily. The Unreal community has gone from having 2 titles (tournament and championship) separating us, now we have 1 title to rule them all, and should be allowed to choose to play against people on different systems if we so desire if there are no REAL technical barriers involved. Furthermore, maps and mods can be shared between the two platforms, so it just makes sense. In numerous interviews, Epic has admitted it is possible, just that they "haven't seen any real demand for it". So let's let them know we want it!

So far there's no real reason that I can see to assume there would ever be cross platform for UT4. Why would there be, and how would it work exactly when they already have 3 platforms to support with a skeleton team, and new builds of the game will be coming out on a regular basis for probably a couple of years yet?

I loved the idea of it for UT3 because the community was small with no hope of change of that whereas our current phase of development and exposure is not even comparable. Second, we had the gametypes already that would have attracted console players (ie vehicular). Right now I just don't see the same appeal. Even the camping style play I mentioned, with snipers, would work far better for console than what we have now. Larger models, slower shots or not... all I see there is them trying to find the right balance of "feel" for most people and they finally recognized that it was off, people called out player model size repeatedly for years.

Not that it wouldn't be fun to see an experiment like that, but don't get your hopes up.

[Dementiurge]

Minor theory: The idea that matchmaking could save a dying game, or a dying genre, is a myth.

Many dead games have matchmaking. For just a few poignant examples, look at Titanfall, Evolve, and now (judging by a certain thread on r/PCGaming) Star Wars: Battlefront. Despite huge budgets, decent gameplay, and initially large playerbases, these games dwindled in less than a year after their release. Maybe one could argue that matchmaking delayed the inevitable, but one thing should be made perfectly clear: Matchmaking did not save them.

Matchmaking needs a large population of players to be beneficial. Or I should say, populations. At entry-level you need a constant flow of fresh blood, because players get better and graduate to higher skill levels. At the very top you need a sizable community of elite players, otherwise their queue times will take ages and they will stop playing... Or create smurf accounts, impacting the experience of other players. If your game is affected by latency, you'll need a healthy population in each region so that you can match players who are close by and have similar latency. If you have multiple game modes, each of those needs a healthy population or matchmaking will suffer and drive players to game modes that are more populated but not what those players wanted to play. If a player population isn't already thriving, you'll inevitably begin to hear the word "dead". Dead times, dead modes, dead servers, and possibly a dead game.

Matchmaking won't stop a game from hemorrhaging players for other reasons. Matchmaking can get players into a game, but it can't make them enjoy it and it won't force them to stay. A possible exception would be when the matchmaking itself is the game that you expect players to enjoy, but that's a very rare exception.

Trying to build communities around servers is not really helped by matchmaking. While matchmaking has been enormously beneficial for playing with friends in arranged matches, the inherently transitive nature of matchmaking will throw you and your friends from server to server like a wind-blown leaf. When you see players idling on social networking sites rather than playing a game, or building large cross-game clans or communities, what you get are large transitive populations that can quickly flood into a game but also quickly wash out at a moment's notice as they follow whatever is the latest trending game. Server communities are fantastic for player retention, but won't have the chance with matchmaking.

Modding and matchmaking don't mix well. If matchmaking can suffer from cutting populations just a few times, modding is like running those populations through a cheese grater. Most games where modding is an option simply use a lobby system for mods and custom games. It's easier that way and avoid conflict. Yet it's unclear if matchmaking steers players away from modding and customization because of its ease; certainly it is true in games like Halo and Starcraft that the vanilla experience remains vastly more popular than even the ingenious custom minigames that are available, but their vanilla experiences are also so widely acclaimed that the custom population may be getting a net benefit in spillover from the vanilla game. In the case of a game where the modded experience is the primary draw, having a lackluster vanilla experience with matchmaking may provide no benefit at all.


While matchmaking may be beneficial for the basic Duel or TDM game modes, it's not going to help UT4 with its current population problem. It may not even help UT4 define itself in the future as anything other than another Quake clone.