Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this game dead?

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

    #91
    Originally posted by LtC-Cynical View Post
    EDIT: I'm curious now, what's you're thought on changes that make a game less fun for players in order to make it "more exciting" for spectators? For example, the recent Killer Instinct and Mortal Kombat reboots have intentionally made zoning under-powered, because "viewers like rushdown and big combos". Are you for or against such changes?
    I would say I'm mostly for them, but would have to assess a case by case basis. Ultimately, I see balance and viewership as having a very intimate relationship, and when I think in terms of what I look for in a potential eSport, I'm quicker to compare them to actual sports than video games. At the end of the day, players play. What's fun for them is some what subjective, but mostly inherent to the medium. What's fun to watch, or what strategies are effective, like zoning, or +back, is all up to the design. I think shooters especially need more negative feedback. Duels play kind of like a "winners outs" type of game with how basic the items control is designed (better in Quake, but especially bad in UT), and it results in either blowouts, or very low scoring games perpetuated by lots of +back. You can't go hard in the paint in this game.

    So I look to the major sports for inspiration. The NBA has a history of trying to diminish the efficacy of the Center position, since Chamberlin dominated from it for so many years. They widened the key, added the shot clock, widened the key again... In the NFL, pass interference rules made passing a tough game, and this was clearly seen in fantasy. All you needed was a great running back, and maybe a decent QB. Quick change to the pass interference rules, and suddenly, you could attack from multiple direction now, providing for multiple viable tactics in getting the ball down field (just one, more recent example). A couple of the "brutality" rules in the UFC are severely hindering it's viewership. They enable boring to watch strategies that would not only get you crippled in the streets, but are literally only effective in that octagon. I have also contemplated ways to give baseball pitchers less control over the ball. Making it lighter, or losing some threads, so that pitching isn't so effective in that game. Impressive as it may be, watching someone pitch a perfect game is boring. They should do something to promote more action in the infield.

    Viewership is all about unpredictability. Most of these games are "predictable" in one sense or another, and skill sets, and off sets will usually make it so that betting lines are what they are, but if the game is balanced, and there are multiple ways to win it, things remain interesting. Typically, if it's interesting for the viewer, it is so for the player as well. Some of them just might whine a bit, because it might push them out of their wheel house to keep up with the complexity of the game, but this is very important to the concept as a whole. If there is a go-to strategy to win the game, it's only a matter of time before it gets stale.
    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


      #92
      Originally posted by Danielito View Post
      0.1.5 18,027 views
      0.1.6 18,985 views
      0.1.7.1 15,860 views
      0.1.8 8,627 views
      0.1.9 7,415 views
      0.1.10 5,194 views
      0.1.11 5,778 views
      0.1.12 2,551 views (current build)


      I think the number of views for each update is quite a good indicator about the state of the community ...

      I don't blame the game and its errors, but the decision taking of EPIC and their nearly zero-communication policy and interest in opinions of the community.
      https://www.epicgames.com/unrealtour.../announcements
      Your numbers don't match at all. Did you just make this up? lol
      AKA ||Ransom from Absolute clan.
      I have a WIP map. DM-Mosnar on Absolute Atlanta Hub

      Comment


        #93
        Originally posted by Ransom8316075924 View Post

        https://www.epicgames.com/unrealtour.../announcements
        Your numbers don't match at all. Did you just make this up? lol
        Compare with the feedback threads, not the announcements.

        Comment


          #94
          Originally posted by -AEnubis- View Post
          I would say I'm mostly for them, but would have to assess a case by case basis. Ultimately, I see balance and viewership as having a very intimate relationship, and when I think in terms of what I look for in a potential eSport, I'm quicker to compare them to actual sports than video games. At the end of the day, players play. What's fun for them is some what subjective, but mostly inherent to the medium.
          Eh, I can't say I agree with that statement. Not all games are anywhere near to equal fun for the players, and even within a game, some are going to find different playstyles more fun. If you do similar to the modern KI or MK games and try to cater to one style of play that viewers consider entertaining (most non-playing spectators tend to ignorantly consider zoning -- the fighting game equivalent of +back play -- to be "boring" or "cheap"), you've already eliminated a sizeable chunk of your playerbase.

          It's especially weird to read this on a UT forum -- the fact that you're here and not on a Quake forum already says that you like playing +back a lot (and I don't say this as an insult, my S key is also well-worn), and are a friend to "boring-to-watch" playstyles".

          I think shooters especially need more negative feedback. Duels play kind of like a "winners outs" type of game with how basic the items control is designed (better in Quake, but especially bad in UT), and it results in either blowouts, or very low scoring games perpetuated by lots of +back. You can't go hard in the paint in this game.
          I agree that UT tends to be a bit too much "screw OOC player", but that's down more to map design than anything else. Create maps with shorter sight lines that loop back on themselves a bit less efficiently (yes, this will make flow worse, but it'll also reduce killing of helpless players which will in turn reduce blowouts) and -- more importantly -- get mappers over the "no more than one of any given item" mental block (imagine playing UT99 on maps that had no belts, two vests, and one pads -- you now have three items worth fighting over [pads becomes relevant when both players need it to reach 150A] spawning fairly frequently, and running two items will only get you 50 extra stack over OOC player, enough for one good shot to melt off), and you'll see this change. Unfortunately, players are tending to be too conservative in what maps they're willing to play for this to become a reality, it seems, with duelists seemingly having made up their mind on "all ASDF, all the time" (a map that is both incredibly small and spawn-kill friendly AND has very few vials concentrated to one location... blowout central); the second favorite map, Erase, is also very hard on freshly spawned players (easy to get anywhere very fast plus some hard sight lines plus only three armors). A map with a belt, 2 vests, a 10-or-15-vial-stack somewhere, and a pads -- an obvious clone of Quake's "RA, 2YA, Mega, Shards" setup -- would never get played, even though it would do a lot more to solve the issues that get brought up than any movement or weapon tweak (doubly so with a UT99-like armor system or with the Armorware mutator, where OOC could still stack to 150A and the difference would be time spent stacking and the vials) (if you think this is "too much stack" available, you could create the same effect with a vest, 2 pads, a 25A, and a big vial stack. The idea is to have lots of stuff that actually matters, both to create fights and to give OOC more ways to stack to avoid blowouts).

          I have also contemplated ways to give baseball pitchers less control over the ball. Making it lighter, or losing some threads, so that pitching isn't so effective in that game. Impressive as it may be, watching someone pitch a perfect game is boring. They should do something to promote more action in the infield.
          Just an FYI -- both of these suggestions would be HORRIBLE for batters, not pitchers. Read up on the "dead-ball era". Both of these would make pitchers more able to create really wicked movement on their pitches with much wilder curves than we currently see. Also, a lot of baseball fans are fans of pitcher's duels -- it's why there's a lot of people (including me) who prefer National League ball over American League ball, since the rules in the former are more pitcher-friendly.

          Viewership is all about unpredictability. Most of these games are "predictable" in one sense or another, and skill sets, and off sets will usually make it so that betting lines are what they are, but if the game is balanced, and there are multiple ways to win it, things remain interesting. Typically, if it's interesting for the viewer, it is so for the player as well. Some of them just might whine a bit, because it might push them out of their wheel house to keep up with the complexity of the game, but this is very important to the concept as a whole. If there is a go-to strategy to win the game, it's only a matter of time before it gets stale.
          Videogames will always be predictable in one sense or another, because they don't have the RNG of real-world physics and environmental conditions creating havok. There's no way of getting around this without turning games into slot machines, and no one wants that.

          Comment


            #95
            Originally posted by LtC-Cynical View Post
            A map with a belt, 2 vests, a 10-or-15-vial-stack somewhere, and a pads -- an obvious clone of Quake's "RA, 2YA, Mega, Shards" setup -- would never get played, even though it would do a lot more to solve the issues that get brought up than any movement or weapon tweak (doubly so with a UT99-like armor system or with the Armorware mutator, where OOC could still stack to 150A and the difference would be time spent stacking and the vials) (if you think this is "too much stack" available, you could create the same effect with a vest, 2 pads, a 25A, and a big vial stack. The idea is to have lots of stuff that actually matters, both to create fights and to give OOC more ways to stack to avoid blowouts).
            Yeah, I've thought for a while that something like this could work nicely:

            belt - 87 or 88% absorption, 100pts, stacks to 200
            vest - 75% absorption, 75 pts, stacks to 150
            pads - 50% absorption, 50 pts, stacks to 100

            Without letting some small bit of damage through, what's the functional difference between belt and keg? Nothing. That's why I think something around 87.5% keeps belt as significantly strong than traditional FPS armor, while still having some difference from excess health and lending a bit of parity to vest and pads.

            Points-wise, I think 50/75/100 is a good compromise between the original 150/100/50 and later 100/50/... setups. Each item is only 1.5x better or worse than the next, with absorption rates making the rest of the difference, so vest and pads aren't so devalued.

            Obviously with this arrangement the different types wouldn't stack together to the point that you have the equivalent of 450ap. It'd be more like Quake where regardless of how many of each you grab, the best items replace the lesser ones, so you can't actually exceed 200 ap.

            Comment


              #96
              I don't think that belt being as strong as keg (or stronger, in fact) is a real problem; in terms of raw stack, vest is as much as keg (and spawns three times as often!), and no one thinks vest is too good. The problem is more that pads are terrible, meaning only two items on the map have any importance.

              Your proposed values for armor amounts look good, but I'm not a fan of the lower absorption and stack limit on the pads -- 100H200A vs. 100H100A, OOC is going to have a hellacious time getting back in if IC just runs two items (it's like the Belt vs. Pads situation in 99 all over again). No reason I see not to let pads stack to 150 (which, of course, necessitates higher absorption than 50% to matter), unless you take the QuakeWorld route and don't let someone with over 150A take the vest. Pads would still be less desirable than vest (longer stacking time), but the last thing UT duel needs is more ways to make life harder for OOC.

              I still think that this is best solved at the map level by just adding more stuff. "One of everything" is a silly rule, I have no idea why everyone follows it.

              Comment


                #97
                Well yeah, with 150ap belt, it varies from Keg in that you get 50 extra points. With 100ap belt and 100% absortion, it's functionally the same thing.

                I don't have a problem with even stronger pads, but bear in mind that it's basically the stronger UT1 pads up against vest and belt which are each weaker than UT1, which makes the pads stronger by extension (i.e. vs. UT3 30pts). If belt is to stay at 100% as a "shield" then it doesn't really hurt to have vest and pads be two different AP amounts of the same vQ3-esque 75% or 66% "armor". I was simply modeling my numbers more on a variation the QW/CPMA approach where everything has a different absorption rate.

                I do find different absorption rates interesting as a holdover mechanic from the earlier days of Q1/Q2 and UT1, but they aren't absolutely crucial, and they're not very transparent to new players, since judging by the HUD they won't see the functional difference between having AP or extra HP, let alone the difference between different types of armor beyond the AP amounts.

                Comment


                  #98
                  Originally posted by LtC-Cynical View Post
                  I still think that this is best solved at the map level by just adding more stuff. "One of everything" is a silly rule, I have no idea why everyone follows it.
                  For Duel maps, it's to force interactions. I've seen quite a few maps made for TDM or CTF where they didn't follow that rule, though. If they do, I suspect it's to add tension and create hotspots in the map.
                  HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                  BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                  Comment


                    #99
                    Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                    For Duel maps, it's to force interactions. I've seen quite a few maps made for TDM or CTF where they didn't follow that rule, though. If they do, I suspect it's to add tension and create hotspots in the map.
                    That's a reason to have one belt and one huge 10-vial hotspot/keg modified to spawn every 30 seconds on a custom base to get around gametype rules/"reasonably sized jar of health" that gives 50-75 health and overcharges/whatever. No reason to do that on your smaller armors, aside from making life harder for OOC. I mean, by that logic, you might as well have one health bubble, one vial, one ammo box for each weapon, one U damage, one Berzerk, one Redeemer, one Flag (doesn't do anything, but makes you look totally fly while you carry it around!), etc.

                    EDIT: I mean, let's be real here -- the only reason we have 25 starting armor and 25 armor helmet with the current armor rules is because no one is willing to put two pads on a map. Would putting two pads instead of a helmet and having starting armor really be that world shattering?
                    Last edited by LtC-Cynical; 07-17-2017, 05:52 PM.

                    Comment


                      I think the original logic behind the the armor amounts and distribution was that if you grab 1 of everything on the map it adds up to 300ap (hence 150 belt/100 vest/50 pads in UT1). Then in UT3 it was all about adding up to 200 (100 belt/50 vest/30 pads/20 helm). Under that kind of system where you can't stack anything, if there were multiple pads or vests, there would be a high likelihood of encountering something you can't really use. Not saying that logic needs to be adhered to, but I think that's what the idea was.

                      Without that concern I definitely think when the alternatives are 150pt and 100pt items, having a 50pt item looks kinda crappy. For that reason, in CPMA with 150 RA and 100 YA, I always thought GA should be 75 and not 50. If UT had the same system where you can't stack every item together for 300ap, then I'd feel the same way about 75ap pads.

                      Going back to the idea of adding up to 300, there are more interesting combinations like 140/90/70 or even 120/100/80 for belt/vest/pads which are more even, yet still allow for big steps between each tier depending on the absorption rates.

                      Deck17 had 2x 50a on account of covering both the former vest and pad spots. With a Redeemer to Keg replacement, that would put it pretty close to the classic Q3 mapping formula. Too bad more maps didn't follow suit.

                      Comment


                        You couldn't get 300 armor in UT99 though; vest and pads would get picked up but vanish if you had over 100 or 50 armor from the belt, unless you abused the belt glitch. In theory, it was "150 through belt or 150 through vest + pads"; in practice, it was "IC runs two items and gets 150 from belt and denies vest; OOC gets pads for 50". Unless you were playing one of those maps that only had belt + vest (like Codex) or belt + pads (like Curse), in which case it was "IC gets belt for 150, denies other armor, OOC is just SOL".

                        I skipped UT3, but I thought belt stacked with itself to 200 in that game, giving the ultimate shaft to OOC player? "Hey, remember how much fun 150A vs. 50A was? Now it's 200A vs 50A, and you need to pick up two items to get your 50A instead of one!"

                        Comment


                          Well clearly then, the intention in UT1 was still for vest and pads to stack to 150 to match belt. Something like 80/70 still would have been a more even way to do it.

                          If you compared UT3 to QL where it was 100/50/25 for RA/YA/GA, then the 20/30 for helmet/pads didn't seem so bad, but of course the difference is in QL everything stacks to 200. In practice I didn't get shut out that badly too often, but I almost never played humans on account of the community being DOA, and obviously bots aren't a great test of map control.

                          I'm still puzzled as to why Keg wasn't used more often, at least in custom maps, the work around the limitations of UT's armor system. With 150 belt, keg basically is a vest with 100% absorption, making vest the not-so-bad tertiary option. Yet I feel like Keg is not nearly so common in UT DM maps as MH in Quake.

                          Comment


                            Well, QL also softens it by usually having two YA or sometimes one YA and two GA; you'll never see a UT duel map with two vests, for god only knows what reason. Furthermore, tickdown means that everything stacks to more like 150 in practice.

                            The reason that Keg was always turned off in duel in 99 was "you can't see if someone has the additional health". Why this was considered something that you couldn't infer by, I don't know, whether or not someone took the keg in the first place is beyond me. Of course, the UT community is stuck in time in 2002 and resists all change, so now we have Keg off because we've always had Keg off.

                            Comment


                              Yeah a lot of Quake maps have 2 YA because during their initial design in Q3 there was no GA, and then when GA was eventually added in CPMA and QL, no one bothered to change the maps. It's sorta lazy but in worked out for the better in many cases.

                              Your keg explanation sadly explains a lot.

                              Comment


                                I think it's fair to say that there are only nebulous reasons to only have one of the lower AP pickups in a map, even in Duel.
                                HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                                BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X