Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Projectile Acc. or Dec. from player speed!

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

  • replied
    Yeah I think that about it, its alot easier to aim and hit in one move then to hit were your aiming

    Prediction shots = pure win

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    It adds depth to spam. Spam is fun. Depth is fun. Spam with depth is double fun.
    I completely agree with the latter three points, but as it is spam has enough depth for a lot of people to not bother with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    you could explain how it will make the game better?
    It adds depth to spam. Spam is fun. Depth is fun. Spam with depth is double fun.

    All subjective, of course. I understand that you do not agree. No need to reiterate that.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Make it a mutator. Finis.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    I thought this game was about shooting stuff, not about hopping around. Besides, there's always that little thing known as "cover".
    I know it's a cliché, but no movement importance whatsoever is something for the WW2 games.

    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    Is there a difference? It may take slightly longer or shorter, but all that really affects the end result is the relative skill level.
    Yes, of course there's a difference. What makes games fun is playing the game itself, not just the look of the scoreboard at the end. Where's a bulb smiley when you need one?

    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    The game is already broken. Otherwise, all we needed was UT1 with new graphics. The time for changes is now.
    If it's broken maybe we should fix it instead of breaking it some more. Like I said, the kind of thing like relative projectile velocity is no different from the liftboostdodgeshielddoublejump (it should be obvious a liftboostdodgeshieldwalldodgejump isn't possible... right?) in that it complicates the game and makes it less intuitive without giving anything back for it besides the fact that a few avid forumers think it might be an interesting idea that could maybe work. It's in the end a useless feature nobody wants that would create lots of trouble for the game.

    Maybe, instead of going through lengths and showing that implementing relative projectile velocities doesn't break the game as badly as I think it will, you could explain how it will make the game better?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    It also reduces the importance of movement.
    I thought this game was about shooting stuff, not about hopping around. Besides, there's always that little thing known as "cover".

    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    no. It does not add an intuitive extra dimension to gameplay.
    Subjective.

    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    After a few days new players will most likely be trying to figure out why their RL and flak shots aren't hitting even though they're aiming at their opponents
    Took me only three minutes with the Tribes Spinfusor to figure out exactly what was going on. And that was the first time I'd ever even seen Tribes.

    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    games should be fun from the start, not after you spend ages figuring out what's going on. That includes listening to a tutorial explaining what's going on.
    By your definition, ONS is not fun. Games don't all have to be idiot proof.

    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    they're mines that walk by themselves and can be redirected after placement. Who cares about their exact initial position?
    Direct your mines much? They clump up and/or suicide on small bumps in the terrain. Best to just throw them where they're supposed to be and leave them where they fall.

    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    Basically it seems all you're doing now is thinking up ways to "correct" something you're breaking, or at least arguments to justify breaking it.
    The game is already broken. Otherwise, all we needed was UT1 with new graphics. The time for changes is now.

    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    Aren't you confusing "killing" with "winning" here?
    Is there a difference? It may take slightly longer or shorter, but all that really affects the end result is the relative skill level.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I think that, if its done right, variable projectile speed could work.

    Often I've been playing Onslaught and had to jump out of my almost-dead Raptor at high altitude. I'm falling to my probable death, but obviously I want to do some damage on the way down so I open fire with whatever I have. Problem is, after a second or two I'm falling so fast that most things I fire (link gun pulses, shock ball, rockets, flak, etc.) go slower than me so they appear to go backwards - it's weird.

    I think that forward speed being increased by the players own speed would be good. Sideways changes could be a bit confusing though so if that gets added it would need to be considerably lower. You could argue that the majority of projectiles (especially those with their own propulsion, i.e. rocket/redeemer) would end up moving in the direction they were fired due to their own aerodynamics anyway.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    So it is your intention to 1) make unfounded statements, apparently in some ill-conceived attempt to ridicule my statements and 2) implicitly deny a certain correlation between the Unreal and Tribes franchises?

    Just checking.
    I just want to show you that this whole adding your own velocity to projectiles idea is a stupid one. There may be some correlation between Tribes and UT, but both saying that something that works in Tribes works in UT and the opposite isn't going to work, so yes, I suppose I was, in a way, ridiculing that particular statement, if you insist on calling it that.
    Aren't you taking this a bit too personal though?

    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    Since you're so good at reversing statements, I'm sure you can follow this logic: instead of nerfing hitscan, you can boost projectile power.
    Boost it to what? There's no real way to boost it beyond instant-kill on unarmoured opponents, which I might hope is already the level projectiles are at in UT3. (well, you could bring it up to instant-kill on armoured opponents, but that'd partly beat the point of having armour, not to mention making no difference 90% of the time in FFA)

    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    Projectile inaccuracy is easily corrected by increasing the splash damage radius. This adds a very intuitive extra dimension to gameplay. Spam is good.
    It also reduces the importance of movement. Unless you're willing to exaggerate as badly in that department as in UT2k3 (making projectiles less and hitscan more useful again, negating what you just changed). I don't really think that is a good idea though.

    Also: no. It does not add an intuitive extra dimension to gameplay.

    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    What is hard for new players is if some projectiles are and some aren't affected by player velocity. Which is currently the case. After using the Rocket Launcher or Flak Cannon for three seconds, no new player will ever guess that spidermines can be launched twice as far by dodging (assuming Epic properly explained what dodging is...).
    And they would figure it out if all projectiles were affected?
    I think it doesn't work like that. After a few days new players will most likely be trying to figure out why their RL and flak shots aren't hitting even though they're aiming at their opponents, after which they'll stop bothering with projectiles, or stop bothering with the game altogether and start playing Call of Duty or Counter Strike where shots do hit what you're aiming at, and IMO rightly so: games should be fun from the start, not after you spend ages figuring out what's going on. That includes listening to a tutorial explaining what's going on.

    Besides, like explained before, the only weapons currently affected are AR grenades and mines. The former was just a stupid idea that never should've made it into the game. The latter... doesn't really matter does it? I mean they're mines that walk by themselves and can be redirected after placement. Who cares about their exact initial position?

    Basically it seems all you're doing now is thinking up ways to "correct" something you're breaking, or at least arguments to justify breaking it. Adding your own velocity to projectile velocity brings in a whole slew of problems of the exact same kind that made UT2k3 fail horribly: it makes the game hard, non-intuitive and basically just not fun. At least not to me and, I'm guessing from the popularity of simpler games, practically everybody else. Unless there is some good argument as to why this wouldn't be the case, this whole discussion is rather pointless.

    Oh, also:

    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    Killing is not "easy" or "hard" per se. Your opponents are what make it easy or hard since they generally try to do unto you before you do unto them.
    Aren't you confusing "killing" with "winning" here? Obviously the difficulty of winning is unchanged because it's still a multiplayer game (i.e. as hard as your opponent), but it is definitely possible to make killing "easy" or "hard" in itself. Just compare UT2k3, any WW2 game and UT instagib.
    Maybe it'd be clearer to use the term "killing and getting killed" instead of just "killing", but that's such a mouthful.

    Originally posted by Pendrokar View Post
    Didn't you read the first post?
    I said I forgot about it. I did read the first post, but I don't re-read an entire thread every time I post in it and even if I did it'd be easy to forget such a small detail somewhere between reading the first post and finishing a lengthy post.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Xyx View Post
    Killing is not "easy" or "hard" per se. Your opponents are what make it easy or hard since they generally try to do unto you before you do unto them.
    Only partially true. Of course movement and opponents are part of it. But then compare UT and UT2003 when it comes to killing (and have a look at the weapon damage).

    Take out the "weapon" part of my quote and make it: "We want it easier to kill again."

    Making things more complicated for projectiles and harder to use won't help that.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    You crazy. forced recoil FUKING SUCKS. What is the fuking point of dodging and strafing and shooting you priks. You crazy pieces of ***** have no idea of unreal tournament or something. You baffle me. And reloading?? Go *** yourself. Reloadin in an unrealtournament is crazy. You wanna make it CS. If cs had no reloading and no forced recoil it would be a fast paced game not forgtting instant spawn too and more health. And player momentum to projectile gets your rocket moving sideways while dodging ya ********?? Only on the mine layer.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Pendrokar View Post
    Easy - - we want recoil; - we want reloading
    Hell F***ing No!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    It was no less unfounded than your statement. In fact it was just a reversal of it.
    So it is your intention to 1) make unfounded statements, apparently in some ill-conceived attempt to ridicule my statements and 2) implicitly deny a certain correlation between the Unreal and Tribes franchises?

    Just checking.

    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    Unless you're willing to completely nerf hitscan weapons (which is a bad idea)
    Since you're so good at reversing statements, I'm sure you can follow this logic: instead of nerfing hitscan, you can boost projectile power.

    Originally posted by Boksha View Post
    modifying projectile weapons to be affected by the player's speed will make UT harder to learn for new players which is the last thing we want.
    Projectile inaccuracy is easily corrected by increasing the splash damage radius. This adds a very intuitive extra dimension to gameplay. Spam is good.

    What is hard for new players is if some projectiles are and some aren't affected by player velocity. Which is currently the case. After using the Rocket Launcher or Flak Cannon for three seconds, no new player will ever guess that spidermines can be launched twice as far by dodging (assuming Epic properly explained what dodging is...).

    Originally posted by fuegerstef View Post
    - we want that it is easier to kill with the weps again
    Killing is not "easy" or "hard" per se. Your opponents are what make it easy or hard since they generally try to do unto you before you do unto them.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    - we want slow weapon switching
    - we want that it is easier to kill with the weps again
    - we want the original UT feel back

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Actually i dont want all those things. I would like only the canister gun to really be affected in this way, so you can throw grenades and mines further. I think all the other weapons should stay as they are, especially the Rocket Launcher. Other than that i'm going to trust Epic on the weapons (because they look awesome so far) and i know they know what they're doing.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by fuegerstef View Post
    - we want recoil
    - we want forced inaccuracy while moving
    - we want helmets to protect us from getting headshot
    - we want slow weapon switching
    - we want reloading
    - we want player momentum transferred to the projectiles
    - we want that it is easier to kill with the weps again
    - we want the original UT feel back
    Easy - - we want recoil; - we want reloading

    'doh! Completely forgot about that one.
    Didn't you read the first post?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X