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

[Stolid]

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.

This just bears repeating.

Unless UT becomes a 1 gametype game with unified rules and mods (likely no mods) matchmaking will play such a minor role that its effect will go largely unnoticed by players or simply can't be used effectively due to unbearable waiting times.
It cannot and will not save UT as we know it.

[heartlessphil]

Ut right now gets boring fast because there's nothing ''special'' about it. It literally has nothing more than ut99 when you think about it. They should try more stuff, take risks, I dunno.

Recently I've played some games that are trying some new stuff (not arena shooters but it's an example).

-Rainbow six siege. The kind of combat/strategy with procedural destruction we've never really seen elsewhere.
-The division. Trying a new kind of pvpve based on risk/rewards and loot stealing.
-Metal gear solid 5. FOB system is no perfect but it's a new pvp concept too. Infiltrating other player's bases to steal ressources/staff.

Unreal right now is stucked in the past. We need something like Assault/Onslaught revisited or a new mode that's exciting to play. Epic is being too conservative with movements/weapons etc. They're not even ''trying'' new ideas.

The last arena fps I enjoyed truely was Titanfall because it had super fun movements. You could do crazy stuff. They also had new features like A.I to fill the map, mechs. It was a breath of fresh air for a little while until it died , I think, because there was ''only'' matchmaking. I've seen some prototype movements for this new ut but they get ignored for some reason. Same for cool new gun ideas. :-(

[nubizZz]

Titanfall is class based sci-fi. Not arena. It held my attention for all of 10 hrs. Worst $80 I've spent in a while.

This game has far less than UT99. Arena shooters aren't for everyone, but what truly separated them in the past is complex and unique gun play.

[MKhrome]

Blowing up stuff while learning mechanics.

I've been thinking in this space as well.

Closets thing that might be of interest is a monster mode. See this thread: 'Concept Art Unreal Universe Monsters! Lets make some art together!'

I'm more for an actual singleplayer mode. It would take you through all the weapons and maps (most of them anyway) to make you familiar with the basics. A singleplayer or co-op mode which doesn't focus on the essentials of the game would probably make things worse for a multiplayer focused game imho.

[MKhrome]

Ut right now gets boring fast because there's nothing ''special'' about it. It literally has nothing more than ut99 when you think about it. They should try more stuff, take risks, I dunno.

Recently I've played some games that are trying some new stuff (not arena shooters but it's an example).

-Rainbow six siege. The kind of combat/strategy with procedural destruction we've never really seen elsewhere.
-The division. Trying a new kind of pvpve based on risk/rewards and loot stealing.
-Metal gear solid 5. FOB system is no perfect but it's a new pvp concept too. Infiltrating other player's bases to steal ressources/staff.

Unreal right now is stucked in the past. We need something like Assault/Onslaught revisited or a new mode that's exciting to play. Epic is being too conservative with movements/weapons etc. They're not even ''trying'' new ideas.

The last arena fps I enjoyed truely was Titanfall because it had super fun movements. You could do crazy stuff. They also had new features like A.I to fill the map, mechs. It was a breath of fresh air for a little while until it died , I think, because there was ''only'' matchmaking. I've seen some prototype movements for this new ut but they get ignored for some reason. Same for cool new gun ideas. :-(

That's assuming no one wants to play oldschool shooters.

The other games you mention are all much, much slower paced - They're in no way comparable to UT. Unreal Tournament has always been 'the game to end all arena shooters', nothing more, nothing less. If you want to make the game lower paced and introduce more forced/cover mechanics, it won't be UT anymore, but Gears of War. There would be no point whatsoever in calling it UT, but the name itself gives a clue as to what the game wants to be, what Epic wants it to be and what the majority of the people involved in its development want it to be and THAT is what counts.

You have to identify what actually makes Unreal Tournament, well, Unreal Tournament. You have to find the core, and present it to the would-be new players.

Bingo! This inspired me to think of this: Truel coop - One high rank player vs Two lower rank players

A truel is a neologism for a duel among three opponents, in which players can fire at one another in an attempt to eliminate them while surviving themselves.^[1]

While this could be achieve already in TDM, this gamemode is specifically setup for matchmaking; matching a high rank player against two lower rank players.

It would help increase the lower rank players skill by observing how a higher rank player plays first hand.

And this is not helping the game at all!

The core of the game is fast paced, competitive run and gun action. Deathmatch and CTF exemplify this the most. Trying to reel in a new audience with game modes which have been copied from other, newer games (honestly, L4D has done it the best even if it started somewhere else) is at best lying to yourself and at worst betraying the game's core identity.



Also please mind, i do not mean any of this in a mean way - I'm only worried that people lose sight of what makes this game tick, and what made it work all that time ago.


To re-iterate on that: The core of the game is fast paced, competitive run and gun shooter action. You can even call it extremely fast paced (there aren't many shooters which are faster). I do have to note that one additional strength of UT has always been the weapon variety and strategy, where all weapons are useful to some degree (unlike it's id competitor) with no exception (except the perpetually underpowered enforcer).


You have to build on these strengths to develop the series further. Here, adding new types of movement or expanding on them is not a bad idea at all. Wall-running and jumping, double jumping, sliding along sloped surfaces and especially dodging (the thing that ever so slightly set UT99 apart from its competitor) are already there. Why not subtly add to these and make them a more flowing experience?

One thing to aid in this could be, thinking indirectly here, to remove all hitscan mechanics and replace them with actual projectiles (including the shock rifle), making movement and dodging not just useful, but integral to the experience. You could also look sideways at Titanfall and Vanquish for some inspiration on movement mechanics.

Everywhere else the game should remain focused on that core - Run and gun shooting at an extremely fast pace. KISS. Make and keep DM/TDM/CTF as the main modes of play, for smaller amounts of players (8-12) as to keep everything somewhat sane.

And within this frame of mind, new players should be drawn to it. Structure a singleplayer mode for these players around the core modes. Make it have leagues, personalities in different bots and elements which underline the experience of entering a competitive 'sport' rather than 'just another scifi CoD clone' as a lot of people may see it nowadays. Give the player agency within that frame to develop himself and experience not just what the game has to offer, but what it stands for.

Who can kill/frag the other guys the fastest, and the most. Simple





It may seem too simple to some, but it's why we are basically all here. The day that even we, the fans, are trying to make the game into something it's not, is the day we truly lose it

( okay, that sounded more sentimental than i intended tbh but i think you get the point )

[richardboegli]

I'm more for an actual singleplayer mode. It would take you through all the weapons and maps (most of them anyway) to make you familiar with the basics. A singleplayer or co-op mode which doesn't focus on the essentials of the game would probably make things worse for a multiplayer focused game imho.

So this is just progression with bots? Just like every UT game before hand?

Not saying its a bad thing, its just more of the same.

Unless I'm missing something?

[richardboegli]

That's assuming no one wants to play oldschool shooters.

...

You have to identify what actually makes Unreal Tournament, well, Unreal Tournament. You have to find the core, and present it to the would-be new players.

Agreed.

Bingo! This inspired me to think of this: Truel coop - One high rank player vs Two lower rank players

A truel is a neologism for a duel among three opponents, in which players can fire at one another in an attempt to eliminate them while surviving themselves.^[1]

While this could be achieve already in TDM, this gamemode is specifically setup for matchmaking; matching a high rank player against two lower rank players.

It would help increase the lower rank players skill by observing how a higher rank player plays first hand.

And this is not helping the game at all!

The core of the game is fast paced, competitive run and gun action. Deathmatch and CTF exemplify this the most. Trying to reel in a new audience with game modes which have been copied from other, newer games (honestly, L4D has done it the best even if it started somewhere else) is at best lying to yourself and at worst betraying the game's core identity.



Also please mind, i do not mean any of this in a mean way - I'm only worried that people lose sight of what makes this game tick, and what made it work all that time ago.

I get that your not trying to be mean

I'm looking at different ways to allow fresh players to the genre to be able to play and enjoy a game with vetrans.

The skill ceiling is high and can detract people from playing.

Who can kill/frag the other guys the fastest, and the most. Simple

hehe, but you've summed it up, this is what ArenaFPS are all about.

It may seem too simple to some, but it's why we are basically all here. The day that even we, the fans, are trying to make the game into something it's not, is the day we truly lose it

( okay, that sounded more sentimental than i intended tbh but i think you get the point )

Why have all the other ArenaFPS games "failed" to date? ie: popular for a while, but then fade over time.

What is UT going to do different to attract AND retain the player base?

These are the questions that need to be answered in order to build and maintain a playerbase.

[richardboegli]

Prize money
Halo 5 World Championship
Prize Pool: $2.5M
1st place team: $1M
Biggest individual prize pool in console esports history.

[Smurgl]

I think it's all about little wins. For a new player it can just be getting a frag - any frag! On the opposite end of the scale it can be doing a really nice moving combo or battling out of a tough situation.

You also get little losses - like being out-fragged by someone, or getting spam killed, lagged out of the match, be on a far weaker team, etc.

I think the trick to success is to get as many little wins as possible. I think this is why, in UT3 for example, the game types that continued on were warfare, vCTF and instagib.

In those games, there are lots of ways that you can get little wins (or in the case of instagib - always kills for everyone). The vehicles open up opportunities for kills which don't just require a good fragging aim, control points make players feel like they have done something and things like the titans allowed newer players to get on sprees.

Obviously, as you progress in ability, those little wins change. Now you want 30, 40 or 50 frags to get yourself a little win and the little losses can be just as easy to come by because you have raised your standard.

I think that's a big reason why people get frustrated with the game. Flak, in particular, is very strong and it's easy to frag and die from them. The overall standard of player is also pretty high so dying is a common occurrence - even if you feel you are a strong player. Many of those deaths feel unavoidable so your losses start to out-weight the wins.

To balance it all out between game modes is very difficult. The weapons and their balance will help sway the spam to skill ratio - newer players must have a chance to frag, but top players should be able to do something to reduce the chance they are fragged. Weapons should still allow for "wonder shots" and should not have 1 or 2 weapons which are over-powered vs the rest.

However, after that the game modes can offer more or less little wins. There is a lot of talk about unifying the community to one game type but I don't think it can happen - unless someone invents something new. Having game types that cater for many individuals means that more players will be involved and perhaps those new Warfare players pick up some nice DM skills and starts moving into Duel or TDM, etc. We just need to get them hooked to begin with.

The real advancement over UT99 and so on is to try to make the game into more of an eSport. Have it entertaining to watch with good action but enough clarity for people to understand what is going on. That presentation and features could make all the difference.

[Artaneius]

"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.

The question is whether arena shooters even belong in 2016, or are a relic of the past. In the last 15 years, the game industry has grown immensely. With the huge selection of games, people rarely invest hundreds of hours in any given game, and arena shooters often don't become enjoyable until you have invested hundreds of hours. That's the challenge UT4 faces.


These two quotes are basically the bottom line and the final nail in the coffin about this debate. In my honest opinion I see very little hope for UT4 unless something is done to make it where it isn't a pure arena shooter. I have a reality based question for each person reading this. If cod 4 and UT came out at the exact same time, and they had the same graphics. Would you honestly say you would of picked UT over CoD? If you had the option of playing a shooter that didn't require you to dedicate your life to being good at at that time... Most of you would of went to CoD. Why? Because its common sense. You play the game that rewards you the most. This is the bottom line for the majority of players. Either UT community accepts this reality, or scrap the project.

[heartlessphil]

"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.

The question is whether arena shooters even belong in 2016, or are a relic of the past. In the last 15 years, the game industry has grown immensely. With the huge selection of games, people rarely invest hundreds of hours in any given game, and arena shooters often don't become enjoyable until you have invested hundreds of hours. That's the challenge UT4 faces.


These two quotes are basically the bottom line and the final nail in the coffin about this debate. In my honest opinion I see very little hope for UT4 unless something is done to make it where it isn't a pure arena shooter. I have a reality based question for each person reading this. If cod 4 and UT came out at the exact same time, and they had the same graphics. Would you honestly say you would of picked UT over CoD? If you had the option of playing a shooter that didn't require you to dedicate your life to being good at at that time... Most of you would of went to CoD. Why? Because its common sense. You play the game that rewards you the most. This is the bottom line for the majority of players. Either UT community accepts this reality, or scrap the project.

That reminds me back in 2007 iirc I bought ut3 on my xbox 360 (i know). I thought it was okay-ish... couple days later I bought cod 4. My jaw dropped. The game was so much more fun than ut3. Ok I picked the worst ut vs the best cod but still. This situation must not happen with this new ut. It has to have something refreshing. In 2007, cod 4 was VERY refreshing.

I think we are all just too old to enjoy arena fps like we used to when we were young haha! And the new generation aren't too interested in the genre. I still love to watch stuff like defrag where the skill needed is insane! But playing quakelive/defrag bores me REALLY quick. Back in 2000 arena shooters are pretty all what we had... Biggest games... we're arena shooters.

[richardboegli]

That reminds me back in 2007 iirc I bought ut3 on my xbox 360 (i know). I thought it was okay-ish... couple days later I bought cod 4. My jaw dropped. The game was so much more fun than ut3. Ok I picked the worst ut vs the best cod but still. This situation must not happen with this new ut. It has to have something refreshing. In 2007, cod 4 was VERY refreshing.

Care to expand on how you found if refreshing?

I was on a gaming hiatus during the whole COD uprising and only played UT3 a bit.

[KazeoHin-TechAE]

Care to expand on how you found if refreshing?

I was on a gaming hiatus during the whole COD uprising and only played UT3 a bit.

COD4 was easilly the BEST of the series. For its time looked pretty **** realistic, it had amazingly responsive controls, a VERRY realistic, beleivable and non-macho story. The game put you in the boots of a modern soldier, not a hero, not a god, not rambo: a modern vulnerable soldeir. And it ran at a solid 60 FPS.

[biggamer21]

@ richardboegli

Speaking from my experience the attraction of Cod and similar shooters is the rewarding nature of aiming and getting instant gratification by out aiming opponents. There's also the element of flanking people from behind or playing somewhat smartly as to not let yourself be killed easily. That's "it's thing". As much as people deny it, there is a decent element of skill involved and with team games it can be a fun experience.

UT on the other hand had complex fighting mechanics which meant every fight was never truly the same based on map position, stack, the numbers of weapons you have etc. It also had a very high skill ceiling which kept communities playing actively for over a decade ( speaking 99 here ), not only competitive players but every grade as the game was fun. You remove the good fighting mechanics there isn't anything left. It's been evident as a big problem in this game since the start, and was also one of the big reasons UT3 died so fast. Compared to the original 2 games the experience wasn't as rewarding. Sadly so far epic seem to not realize this.

[richardboegli]

COD4 was easilly the BEST of the series. For its time looked pretty **** realistic, it had amazingly responsive controls, a VERRY realistic, beleivable and non-macho story. The game put you in the boots of a modern soldier, not a hero, not a god, not rambo: a modern vulnerable soldeir. And it ran at a solid 60 FPS.

@ richardboegli

Speaking from my experience the attraction of Cod and similar shooters is the rewarding nature of aiming and getting instant gratification by out aiming opponents. There's also the element of flanking people from behind or playing somewhat smartly as to not let yourself be killed easily. That's "it's thing". As much as people deny it, there is a decent element of skill involved and with team games it can be a fun experience.

UT on the other hand had complex fighting mechanics which meant every fight was never truly the same based on map position, stack, the numbers of weapons you have etc. It also had a very high skill ceiling which kept communities playing actively for over a decade ( speaking 99 here ), not only competitive players but every grade as the game was fun. You remove the good fighting mechanics there isn't anything left. It's been evident as a big problem in this game since the start, and was also one of the big reasons UT3 died so fast. Compared to the original 2 games the experience wasn't as rewarding. Sadly so far epic seem to not realize this.

Thanks for taking the time to comment. It gives me a bit of perspective.