Age :39
Group: Member
Location: Czech Republic
Did spend a lot of time playing QW and developing ezQuake back in the day.
Commentary  /  19 Jun 2011, 21:25
QuakeWorld does not change?
QuakeWorld is one of the most conservative games ever. Its gameplay does not change over years at all.
Really, no changes?

At first look this might sound true. Every single change in the past required lots of discussion. Even change such as changing rocket direct hit damage from random 100-120 to constant 110 had lots of opponents, and lengthy discussions were needed before it got somewhat accepted. But it would be possible to name other important changes: allowance of fullbright skins, custom textures, game clock, fake-shaft, weapon scripts, and others. So then it might sound as the gameplay does actually change over time.

But after some thinking the actual impact of these changes or features actually might not seem so significant. For example fullbright skins only give a bit better visibility of players than what is possible to achieve with extremely unbalanced screen contrast and brightness settings. Custom textures change the actual gameplay in almost insignificant way - there does not seem be any "best" set of custom textures - players use very large variety of custom textures, from high-definition ones, to blurred or single-colored ones. Fakeshaft is perceived as just "better crosshair" by many players, and lots of great shafters play without it, it does not give them any advantage. Weapon scripts were possible since the beginning, clients only made their scripting easier and perhaps removed some small delay in their execution. Gameclock is just an alternative to a large clock being placed next to player's monitor.

So is it really true? Is the gameplay in QuakeWorld almost exactly the same as it was in 1996, when the game was released, except for the minor changes mentioned above?

"Natural evolution changes"

I think the answer is: certainly not. The game has become much faster, the damage (per second) players deal nowadays in average is greater than in the beginning of QuakeWorld. They are able to achieve much higher speeds, perform trick jumps with much higher precision and reliability. Players can react to actions of other players with much less delay.

Such shift of gameplay was caused by a couple of factors. First it were hardware improvements. It became possible to achieve much higher frame rates, monitors allowed to run on high refresh frequencies. Computer mice evolved dramatically, from ball-driven COM1 mouse to laser mouse with high DPI and refresh rates (USB overclocking). Internet routes also improved, giving smaller ping and also transfer rates rose up, so the communication between the client and server now does not need to be limited anyhow.

Second to that it were software changes. The greatest improvement were independent physics - ability to unlimit the rendering frame rate. Feature called cl_earlypackets removed some artificial lag from the incoming network traffic.

This all is a gameplay change or "shift" that happened somehow "on the background". There were no actual discussions about whether new graphics cards or new mice should be allowed. It would be ridiculous to suggest that some new better mouse should not be allowed because it allows to aim better. Independent physics were perhaps also perceived as just a logical evolution of the software, to catch up with new hardware performance and allow greater frame rates.

Such "changes" are actually perceived as some "natural evolution" and get much less, almost no attention at all compared to the minor changes like for example fakeshaft got back then. While new graphics card and mouse gives measurable improvement to everybody, using fakeshaft does only help some players.

Everybody's happy?

But if there were so many discussions about such nearly insignificant changes as fakeshaft or direct rocket hit damage, why there were no discussions about changes caused by the hardware and software improvements?

Maybe because these affect the game slowly. New graphics cards rise the maximum frame rates by only a couple of percent every month. Computer mice also evolve gradually, their precision does improve smoothly with every new mouse.

Also, as mentioned, everybody would get laughed at when suggesting to not allow certain new type of hardware because it is too good, almost the same applies for similar software improvements.

But it is like this also because the scene is very conservative. Pointing out that these changes are not "OK" would mean something should be done about them - probably lessening them artificially by for example lowering some of the weapon damage.

It is often pointed out that originally the creators of QuakeWorld couldn't have any idea what the game would play like in 2011. They certainly couldn't expect how the game would play with as precise mice and high performance GFX cards as we have now - simply because they didn't have such hardware to test the gameplay on it. Also, weapon damage and other factors were probably mainly designed by how well they work in single player.

Game has changed

I think players should realize that they are playing a bit different game then they used to play in the 90's. I think everybody should realize that for example lightning gun damage has been actually changed - not by changing the code of the game, the actual number in the game rules, but by better hardware and software. Certain things that were quite difficult to do back then are now much easier.

If it was easy to start playing the game back then, because everybody's reaction times were quite constrained by the hardware and software, nowadays those limits are greatly lessened and new players have to deal with players who play the game for long time and can fully exploit their fast reactions to the game.

QuakeWorld is a conservative game. Intentional changes get accepted very carefully. However, the gameplay still does change gradually. And it is actually caused also by the fact that the game and the scene is so conservative, that it does not want to do anything intentional to counter this slow "natural" shift.
2011-06-20, 06:58
Not sure if troll!

Seriously though, I hope noone is suggesting changes to counter this "slow natural shift". This shift affects everyone differently and changing things based on laser mice, new monitors or the overall change in player skill etc etc would hurt player a alot more than player b. That might also be the reason as to why making these changes havent really been suggested.

Also, it was harder to start playing qw in the 90s. The newest clients are basically install and play whereas the old clients needed alot of fixing, proxies and help from other players to get it going. Whats hard now is to get a frag vs old players but thats how it should be.
2011-06-20, 09:12
hmm revolutionary 4on4 gameplay changes of the last 10years?

are there any?

(not counting all the improvements above in the article..better controllability)

not a single major change comes to mind, and you know what?

i dont complain what so ever. call me conservative or a brainles monkey but the basic principles of the 4on4 gameplay are just fine, atleast i have had lots of fun while trying to master the vast variaty of movement patterns alone, mastering the tactical thinking of 4on4 put a side alltogether.

If the event horizon would have taken a different evolving path back in the 10years who the fuck knows where would we be now

the path we are now have been great for me atleast, and i have to thank all the developpers and ppl who have been involved somehow in the ever on going progress of Quakeworld evolution
2011-06-20, 10:36
Surely not trolling, neither labeling anyone as "conservative" in a negative sense. No need to "read between the lines", there's no hidden message there. Just trying to point out what I think isn't said explicitly very often.
2011-06-20, 20:12
Actually its what im thinking for a long time. These subtle changes and the "natural evolution" changed the game alot and made it less enjoyable for me. The aiming has become so much easier and better, resulting in a much higher DPS. Imo this affected the "balance" of AIMvsMOVEMENTvsTACTICS and shifted the gameplay (especially in 1v1) more and more into AIM(LG)-only. Resulting in slower, stale and (for me) less fun games.
2011-06-20, 20:28
I completely agree with Spoink. When I had returned after an abstinence of more than 5 years, the first things I noticed were the obvious changes in looks, fakeshaft, gameclocks, improved clients. But then, digging deeper into the game, it became obvious that the game also had changed. The increased fps makes more jump possible, and jumps that once were difficult to execute are now incredibly easy, even for a started. Had it taken months and years to master bunnyhopping in ~98-99 with the defunct clients/servers/fps/pings, everyone can do it now and is even faster. The importance of weapons has changed dramatically. Never being a good shafter myself, nowadays games on shaft maps are annoying, especially in duels. The same applies to boomsticks, in a game on e1m2 the sgs are so deadly that RLs are not even closely as fearworthy as they used to be.

I'm not saying those "changes", which here had been classified as natural evolution, are bad or anything, but it leaves us with a different game, a game which I like less than the "old" one.
2011-06-20, 21:58
also agreed.
i've suggested several times lowering lg damage value per cell or increase cell shots per second while lowering the damage value. imo lg's overpower is killing the game. unless we do something about it.
is it a big change (for our standards) ? yes it is.
will it make the game more fun to play, in long term? yes it will.

maybe the solution is, as johnzz points, implementing this gameplay change slowly. so we don't notice it. from my pov (and at least spoink's and andy's) the alternative is far worse,
2011-06-20, 22:21
The solution: decrease lg cell damage from 30 to 25 and SG damage from 24 to 23. And create more maps without lg or with a limited cells amount. Fuck cmt4 :EE

I agree with the above mentioned statements too.

Edited by Kapitan Kloze on 21 Jun 11 @ 12:31CET
2011-06-21, 13:25
Dunno what the mastershafters will think about that suggestion though

If you start fiddling around with weapon damage you can end up with a situation where you constantly have to patch the game in order to cater to all the ppl screaming: OMG RL IS IMBA PLZ NERF or OMG NOW SHAFT IS IMBA AGAIN PLZ NERF.

Try to adapt as players instead.
2011-06-21, 13:38
Slightly decreasing shaft damage may be inevitable in future imho. The game has changed and it's too much LG-oriented which makes the game become impoverished that way.
Isn't the stable-RL-direct-110-hit already tampering with the gameplay? (instead of random 100-120). I think it is. It has alrerady begun.
2011-06-21, 15:30
Isn't the stable-RL-direct-110-hit already tampering with the gameplay? (instead of random 100-120). I think it is.

The difference is that RL became no weaker weapon in the game. Splash is totally unaffected and it is still identical how it was before. Also note that if you actually score DHs with the 100+rand(20) style in prewar/practice mode and calculate the average of the shots, you will end up at 110 (we actually tested and made sure of this with KTX team back in the days). The change was made only to remove "luck factor" in a way no other player can do more damage than the other with direct hits.
2011-06-21, 15:41
Also a fact to consider, our game changed toward faster response times, making it possible for younger and more alert players to take greater advantage. Meanwhile our userbase became older and older without much new fresh blood coming in. It's obvious why the older players feel the biggest impact of these gradual changes.

I also believe the LG is too powerful but it's countered pretty good by map layouts imo. I'm only interested in 4on4, and for that part only DM3 is equipped with LG. And it's powerful sure, but not all consuming.
2011-06-21, 17:55
While I agree with Paradoks that the LG issue in 4on4 basically only affects dm3, the sg-one remains (even more so on e1m2 imo). The shafting mainly effects duels of course, so it would be interesting to hear an opinion from both evil shaft whores and top duellers like Rikoll, Milton, Reppie (though not that much of a shaft whore), Maga and all those whom I forgot. Maybe some of them feel the game is "imbalanced" now, others may not want to be interested in losing their advantage in a skill they have, which also is understandable.
I'm not suggesting to change anything, definitely not, neither did Spoink, and Mushi also only considered the idea of that might be helpful. In the end all comes down to one question, the same question that we have asked ourselves for the last 10 years (minimum): Which kind of game will be enjoyed the most by the majority? If 50 players no longer find the game enjoyable and silently stopped playing because it feels imbalanced the way it is played nowadays are facing 5 people who would quit the game due to any changes introduced, it's a rather simple calculation which decision is good.

Obviously, this also applies to the other way around, not taking sides here.
How about a survey on the main site what the players think about reducing shaft damage? Just out of curiousity, I would really be interested in knowing how many people feel similar.
2011-06-21, 19:30
Bulat comes.
you guys die die die
2011-06-21, 19:36
Is there a problem with making suitable settings within "1on1" variable? In that way only duels would be affected by it. Say, Lg damage - 25 in duels and 30 in 4/4.
2011-06-21, 20:09
Or just learn to shaft...
2011-06-22, 11:11
Lowering the LG-damage because SOME players cant lg properly? Sounds like their problem and not mine? If you cant hand the lg properly you should PRACTICE alot more, simple.

Hell, my RL isnt as good as my LG, can you increase the splash or something, please? No, didnt think so.
2011-06-22, 11:24
On the other hand I think you should increase the damage on all other weapons, such as SNG and SSG for example. Making it possible to actually seriously damage a guy whos in controll of the map. Would open up alot more diffrent tactics to take over the map instead of just getting spawnraped by a guy with lg. These weapons are pretty much useless (in duel that is) and is rarely ever used nowadays.
2011-06-22, 11:41
locust and dimman you didnt get the point but i wont argue on this place is holy to me and i wont feed the trolls here!
2011-06-22, 13:58
The last thing i want to do is to argue...

What do you think of my suggestion in the second post? If one weapon is to strong atm, lets see if we can buff the other ones (thus not including rl or gl, wich is perfectly fine imo)...
2011-06-22, 14:00
not lg is become better, avoiding it become harder
2011-06-22, 14:15
mm i don't get it, the strong lg works just fine in my head because of how fast it uses the ammo and how little of it there is, on most maps anyway.
if i was to actually entertain the idea of changing it i would change the maximum ammo count instead of the damage itself ;p
2011-06-22, 16:11
I think we will get about as many different opinions and solutions as always and in the end nothing will happen or someone will secretely introduce it on the servers...
2011-06-22, 18:08
You will get absolutely no change if you don't code it yourself, there are no people left to code serverside anymore. No need to worry about updating any servers "secretly", there are other plans for those later this fall.
2011-06-23, 09:19
What plans do you have in mind Renzo?
Fern's idea is also worth considering. Say, 50 cells max and 50 rockets max? (If we tweak lg cells amount, rockets need it too imho)
2011-06-23, 12:38 and its QTV will shut down, same goes for the DNS record for WG since it's under domain (wg will stay, even if it's pretty much unused these days). As for troopers, I'm hoping a certain person is willing to take care of it instead of me.

As you might have noticed (or not), I'm also no longer part of any qw-dev stuff I was used to. I just don't have any interest left since I'm not playing QW anymore, other than speccing Milton at random times.
2011-06-23, 15:17
Sad to hear Renzo, i hope you will at least try to make a handover if there would be someone interested in keeping things running. Thanks for your efforts this far though.

It's a bit negative attitude but i kinda agree with Horatio; there's almost no use discussing "radical" changes as they won't get accepted anyway. People should spend time on getting the non-hook-CTF get accepted and played more instead.
2011-06-24, 08:16
Just learn to shaft!
2011-06-24, 08:22
Sorry that was trolling. But i agree that the improved hw/clients/servers/connections has shifted the weapon balance, favouring hitscan-weapons

Problem is, im not sure which weapon balance i would prefer. How it was in 96 or 99 or 2002 or the year of antilag (which is think is the most dramatic weapon-balance change).
2011-06-27, 14:40
People should learn to adapt. Adapting the game to please less skilled players is something you get from almost any other game.

In the years I've been active, I haven't seen a single undeserved victory in any tournament, be it 1on1, 2on2 or 4on4. Weapon damage works perfectly fine as it is now, but personally I wouldn't give a damn if lg damage is reduced, rocket damage increased, axe hit is instakill or whatever. As long as I find it entertaining to play and don't feel like I could just as well roll a dice to determine the outcome, the physics in QW alone is enough for me to keep playing.

I'm 99% sure modifying any weapon dmg won't give any increased player base (if thats the goal of the suggestion), and is more likely to annoy some of the exisitng players enough to quit completely. And if it's not about the player base, it must be about balance? And why modifiy something that appears to be very well balanced in the first place?

Very well written blog entry btw. Informative, and doesn't point any fingers in any direction. Your personal opinion shines slightly through some places, but thats just refreshing. Moar! :-)
2011-06-27, 18:24
rikoll, the blog tried to argue that the balance between weapons had infact changed. So if the weapon dammage (balance) of 2011 works fine, do you think the balance of 99 was better?
2011-06-27, 18:30
I think the best players adapt to new situations, and don't care about stuff like that.
2011-06-27, 19:44
#23: "You will get absolutely no change if you don't code it yourself, there are no people left to code serverside anymore."

Did qqshka quit completely? On the other hand there sure is other server side developers, just not for mvdsv/ktx perhaps.
2011-06-28, 07:48
QW-Scene has claimed for very long that the current hierarchy system makes QW's weapon balange superior compared to other games, ie. Q3 where weapons are more equal.

This is bullshit.

How can we have a "balance" when half of the weapons are pretty much useless.
I just wonder why there's no mod that would balance the weapons more, YawnMode is sort of try though.

If I could code I'd change:
-Axe Instakill
-Change NG to do SNG damage+sound
-Replace SNG ie. with Minigun from TF
-GL to explode on impact
2011-06-28, 09:44
Imagine battles for pent if axe would be instakill... Or ppl going into dm2 secret ra and directly facing an instakill axe. On e1m2 it is super hard to survive with rl as it is, imagine instakill axers hiding behind all corners.

I dont agree with the explode on impact for the gl either. It already explodes on impact with players and bouncing grenades makes it possible to hit players even when you cant see them. This is good imo.
2011-06-28, 15:24
In 1on1, all weapons but RL, GL and LG are pretty much useless. However, if one would implement changes that made those weapons more powerful in one way another, either by raw power or by making it easier to use (explode on impact), it would affect the 4on4 balance a great deal.

4on4 is so good BECAUSE of the imbalance when it comes to the weapons. You have to make the rest of the weapons usable either by clever play (choking people in narrow corridors with armor + SNG) or by sticking with your mates, combining your h!o!t! SG aim. Also bear in mind that seemingly useless weapons like NG can be used to at least take the pace out of attacking enemies.

Unfortunately, what makes 4on4 so good is also the achilles heel of 1on1 i think.
2011-06-28, 15:53
I will ask again! So what's the problem with creating a different mod for duels only? You just type "1on1" in the console and all the news settings load (different damage etc). Isn't it just time?
2011-06-28, 15:55

I would say exactly the same about 1on1. It's so good because of the imbalance of the weapons. And saying sg / ssg / sng are useless in duels, just proves how little you know about it :-)
2011-06-28, 17:10
Atleast ssg, sng are pretty uiseless in most situations (except for sng in narrow places with enemy close) _except_ vs sg enemys figthing for weapon. So one can't say the weapons are useless, because they are, imo, a big part of surviving and actually getting a better weapon (in 4on4).
2011-06-28, 18:19
I think the dying of QW has proven my point clear enough.

The fact that there're still people who're playing this game is just a statistical phenomen.
2011-06-28, 18:30
Adding fuel to the fire: the amount of ppl playing the game is more of a PE now (probable error). The game is almost dead (no real praccs between clans now, just a couple of mixes at night). Nothing was really ever being done to come up with the standards: it may prove right to be conservative for a short time but in the long run you're just simply fucked. It is pretty sad that you can't really join a server anytime and play 4/4. Instead of just playing you have to spam IRC first and then wait. 50-60 active players is all we get (and that's only in the EQl periods). And the "summer break excuse" doesn't coonvince me either.
If the things stay as they are, the game will probably die in 2 years max (if it's not dead already). So sad
2011-06-28, 18:38
@Pektopahky: Well, then you could apply that reasoning to pretty much any game there is today? (except for the usual examples like Starcraft and CS) It's a separate discussion, but QW has a low number of players because of lack of marketing and that goes both for quality and quantity, fullstop. We expect new players to just find and play this game miraculously and argue whether a new map would change things when they don't even know that the game is still played at all, even less so where they can find EQUAL opponents and a thriving community (IRC isn't the most obvious of places to look at). We don't want to put any effort into marketing the game - in the shape of organizing tournaments for example - and still wonder why the player base is shrinking. GG.

@Rikoll: The only usage i see of those weapons in 1on1 are as finishing weapons when you want to use the instant hit of sg/ssg, or slowing people down with SNG. I admit i'm a sucky duel player, but i don't think my lack of understanding of the sg/ssg/sng usage is a very big part of what i'm missing in my 1on1 skillset.

Instead of wasting time on changing/discussing gameplay mechanics, spend it on something more valuable; attracting/DRAGGING new players to this game via rookie tournaments and marketing on obscure forums. Even if only 1 out of 10 people who tries this game sticks to it, that would be a tremendeous number if one kept going when it comes to arranging newbie friendly tournaments. Part of the problem in the past has probably also been that we've kept looking in the same old fkn places all the time aswell, expecting the 17 Q3 players that are left to start playing QW again.
2011-06-28, 19:43

I totally agree that it's a waste of time discussing change of gameplay mechanics, and that's what I tried to point out (and I don't understand why you brought it up in the first place @#35?). I also gotta say (you know me, I can't stop ) if I HAD to choose, I'd MUCH rather have SG available throughout a game than GL on almost all popular maps. Imagine spawning without the ability to annoy to drain rockets or drain some health off the opponent, with health packs lying all over the place for the dominating player with no meassure to remove them, and being unable to get that fast finisher off either after dying from a close fight in the first place, or at the end of a close fight. Maybe with the exception of ztndm3, as you really have to lack map knowledge to not get a RL or LG there, and that GL is also easy attainable and spamming with it there is really effective there as well. All in all, SG is a much more important weapon to get success than GL in duels (and in 4on4 as well). Also with those examples you mentioned, it's far from "pretty much useless" already isn't it? Well placed nails can also serve as a time buyer as you mentioned, just as well as rockets in many cases.

On the contrary to what many else here seems to think, I belive that the extreme nature of this game and it's no-compromising and conservative way is what have kept players playing this game for so long. Remove that, and I fear that we will lose a good bunch of veterans and gain close to nothing as I think the problem with lack of recruits lies elsewhere. Exactly where is a tougher question, but I think a lot of it is lack of advertisment in the right places and that the game itself is old, as you mentioned.

Anyways, if this ship is sinking, I'm going down with it till it reaches the bottom of the sea. I've tried loads of multiplayer FPS games, and nothing is even close to this unpolished diamond. Lets hope it lasts as long as possible, and keep looking for the reasons why so few new players are attracted. If most of you think it's related to weapon balance / game mechanics, be my guest to spend your energy to try to get something through, but I think you're then wasting your time.

Hugz & kizzes ;-)
2011-06-29, 06:37
Look upon the FPS genre as a whole instead. Every new game is more or less an update to FPS multiplayer gaming and alot of the players will move on to the next big thing. The possibilities of the QW scene to recruit alot of new players would be more or less equivalent to getting hockey players to play in leather skates, wooden sticks and no helmets. The vast majority of ppl who are into FPS multiplayer gaming just wont switch back to older games in the genre.

However, those of you who know players who stopped playing qw and perhaps isnt playng FPS at all might have a shot at getting them to start playing again. The might be done with whatever made them stop in the first place and realize that they are interested in qw still and have time to play.

QW is an early version of FPS multiplayer gaming and im kinda happy that atleast some guys stuck with it.
2011-06-29, 06:43
Also, the summer break (clan game/prac wise) has existed for years now so thats not a surprise.
2011-06-29, 07:12
How much is "a lot of new players" in #43? Five hundred? Couple of thousands? Ten thousands? Fifty thousands? Hundreds of thousands?
2011-06-29, 12:01
More than 300 atleast.
2011-06-30, 12:27
Should not be impossible at all to achieve with recurring efforts to actually attract new players.
2011-07-27, 20:04
#43 se Hooraytio | 29 Jun 2011 @ 09:37
However, those of you who know players who stopped playing qw and perhaps isnt playng FPS at all might have a shot at getting them to start playing again. The might be done with whatever made them stop in the first place and realize that they are interested in qw still and have time to play.

i started to play alittle couple of days ago
qwplayers +1
2011-08-11, 08:49
You have to be logged in to be able to post a comment.