User panel stuff on forum
  131 posts on 5 pages  First page12345Last page
QW.nu polls
2009-01-07, 11:35
Member
66 posts

Registered:
Jan 2007
I can't see why people want to have the randomness, it's unfair and stupid.

Renzo wrote:
1) Quaded rocket will never do more than 440 points of damage, so someone with RA and two megas will survive direct hit from quaded rocket, if he has 441 points of hp total.

2) The chance of dealing 450 points of damage with Q-dh is 37,5%, which is more than every third rocket, but less than every second rocket.

First you say it will never do more than 440, then u say that there is a chance of 37.5% !?
2009-01-07, 11:58
Moderator
1329 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Heh, comparison between 110 static (440) and 100+random*20 (400-480). I'll fix the first post.
Servers: Troopers
2009-01-07, 12:01
Member
312 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
"First you say it will never do more than 440, then u say that there is a chance of 37.5% !?"

With static 110 damage it can't do more than 440 damage, and with random 100+damage it has the potential to do more. Also I find it quite funny that people every so often compares quakeworld to multi-million sport industry like soccer with stuff that aren't really that comparable
2009-01-07, 12:07
Administrator
2059 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Willgurht wrote:
QW is a random game, even if we had fixed spawns etc.. A lot of decisions are just guesses what the opponent will do.

Guesses and estimations made by the player, not the game, i.e. skills that comes from experience and practice.
www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
2009-01-07, 13:02
Member
1435 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
With all the respect I usually have for other people opinions, I just don't understand where the random way gets all it's defenders.

Yes, spawns are random, but that's not because randomness is the goal, it's because there isn't any known better (or similar good) way to do spawns. So please let's not mix this together.

I've seen too many situations where an enemy escaped with health < 20 and seeing these even in future knowing that it's only because the random number generator decided it to be like that, I'd not enjoy this game anymore.
2009-01-07, 14:20
Member
345 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
First of all, it's wrong to call this a fix. Let's call it what it is - a change. Fix is a very coloured word in this context, since it implies that the current way things work is due to a bug, which it most certainly isn't. Now, this topic is about whether it's a good or a bad change.

JohnNy_cz wrote:
[...] I'd not enjoy this game anymore.

Wow. That's some statement. I really don't hope you mean that seriously. If anything it shows that it's a very touchy subject that people have strong feelings about.

People may wonder why this is. After all it's such a small change, so why bother one way or the other? Well, if this change goes through you've basically opened the door for jawnmode to become the new QW (I don't know the complete changeset for jawnmode, but I am basing this statement on one of the goals of that project - to reduce randomness). Random SSG? Out. Yawnmode spawns? Gotta have that. Basically the list goes on.

In particular I like HangTime's post about safe values. I've played a fair bit of Rocket Arena 3 and safe values are particularly apparent and important here. Most servers are configured so you start with 100 armor and 100 health. The railer takes exactly 100 damage distributed on armor and health points, which means that you need exactly two rail hits to kill an opponent. Had you had one health point or one armor point more, you wouldn't have killed your opponent. Now this works exactly like HangTime described. You basically sum your armor and health points, and if the sum is strictly greater than 100, you can attack more aggressively. What this means is that you end up more calm, less up on your toes, if you will, when you have more than 100 combined. What this also means, is that you can often guess whether your opponent has more than 100 or not, since his playing style is likely to change dramatically with it.

I, for one, don't like the RA3 way. Sure, as you can see from what I wrote above, it does add another element to the game, but it's so painfully obviously that even newbie players will pick it very fast. On the other hand, I very much like HangTime's point about applying calculated risk. I kind of promised myself that I wouldn't draw any analogies, since they almost always fail, but I think I can mention this, since it doesn't really compare game mechanics. Well, here we go: Poker is a game that the professional players, at least, claim to be very skillful, and at the same time it has a a lot of luck. The interesting thing about poker is that the skill comes from taking calculated risk all the time. Imagine poker without luck - now that wouldn't be a game at all! Anyway, my point is that using calculated risks is a far higher form of skill (in my opinion at least) than memorizing a few safe values and basically going:

if (health > x) do_this();
else do_that();

Now, as HangTime pointed out, it may be that not a lot of people utilise calculated risk when they're playing. Well, there was a time when most people didn't time items either. Maybe this will be the next big thing, now that people are more aware of it. It's like when ezQuake got an in-game timer, and more players started timing - awareness means more people will start caring about it.
2009-01-07, 16:26
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Just because we can't remove luck entirely, doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can. Walking on spawn spots is simply lack of skill and careless play, it's not comparable. I vote for static damage. Claiming that players would do these kind of calculations and somehow base their game on that sounds really far fetched. The RA3 example above doesn't really apply to QWDM at all.
2009-01-07, 16:52
Member
384 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
if (health > x) do_this();
else do_that();

This still exists in the current model, it's just at 120 instead of 110, and your point about the railgun damage is moot because rockets don't always direct hit, and direct hits are comparatively easy to avoid in open play. That can result in less than 110 damage, which means the calculated risk element still applies whether you have fixed dh damage or not.
2009-01-07, 16:56
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Stev wrote:
your point about the railgun damage is moot because rockets don't always direct hit, and direct hits are comparatively easy to avoid in open play.

Indeed. In QW splash damage is always the safe bet if we talk about calculating the risks in the long run. If you receive a direct hit, that on itself can be considered as "bad luck".
2009-01-07, 18:28
Member
26 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Many good points have been made by people who want the damage to be static and I fully agree with them.

Where randomness is not needed it should not be used. Comparisons to real life sports are also not accurate at all. As already stated, the sports organizations strive for a controlled environment with everything as equal as possible, uncontrollable factors like rain/humidity, temperature, strong wind etc. CAN be observed by the players and CAN be reacted to, however hard it may be to do it accurately. A Quakeworld player cannot in any way do anything to affect the outcome of the damage of his direct hit.

And as very few people noticed it during a three month test period I do not see any harm in going for it. Many of the QW-scenes true workhorses (people who also have the most insight to the game) seem to be for this change and IMO we should just change this as there is really no downsides to it, and let them go on to the next thing that can be done to improve the game we love.
2009-01-07, 19:15
News Writer
1267 posts

Registered:
Jun 2007
will this change make more players stay with the game?
will this change bring new players to the game?

if we dont change this, will it make players stay?
if we dont change this, will it make new players come?

or will players quit if we dont change it?
will new players stay away if we dont change it?

or why do we care about these issues at all?

think about that before you start to poke about in such ridiculuos matters as this is...
Chosen
2009-01-07, 22:41
Administrator
383 posts

Registered:
Dec 2006
blAze wrote:
Just because we can't remove luck entirely, doesn't mean we shouldn't do what we can. Walking on spawn spots is simply lack of skill and careless play, it's not comparable. I vote for static damage. Claiming that players would do these kind of calculations and somehow base their game on that sounds really far fetched. The RA3 example above doesn't really apply to QWDM at all.

Despite what I've posted above, having given it some thought, I'm included to agree. I think the benefit of 'removal of randomness' outweighs the (minimal) amount of potential tactical decision making which might be lost (which as I alluded to, would realistically only come in to play in a 1on1 game anyway). I was largely just theorising/playing devil's advocate, partly based on those moments where I've gone in rambo style on e1m2 with 80h 100ga (somehow that armour reading makes me feel stronger than I am!) and then chastised myself moments later as I die from a single rocket.

Fixing damage is definitely the lesser of two evils, and 110 makes the most sense.
2009-01-08, 00:46
Member
1754 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Stev wrote:
It didn't seem to affect anyone's fun during the 3 months it was enabled on renzo's servers, did it?

then why so conserned about "fixing it"? what are the good reasons for changing it to a specific value?
2009-01-08, 00:46
Member
312 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
Hooraytio wrote:
will this change make more players stay with the game?
will this change bring new players to the game?

if we dont change this, will it make players stay?
if we dont change this, will it make new players come?

or will players quit if we dont change it?
will new players stay away if we dont change it?

or why do we care about these issues at all?

think about that before you start to poke about in such ridiculuos matters as this is...

I asume you're just provoking or trolling but I'm saying something anway:

Are you serious? Have there been any new players to the scene just because of ezQuake? Should ezQuake developement be stopped and perhaps the project leaders ridiculed? It hasn't changed the scene but it's one hell of an improvement.
2009-01-08, 03:20
Member
384 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Peppe wrote:
then why so conserned about "fixing it"? what are the good reasons for changing it to a specific value?

I want to have the person who played better win, and this makes it more likely without changing the way you will play or enjoy the game. It's a perfect win/win situation in my opinion.
2009-01-08, 03:42
Member
384 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
Hooraytio wrote:
will this change make more players stay with the game?
will this change bring new players to the game?

if we dont change this, will it make players stay?
if we dont change this, will it make new players come?

or will players quit if we dont change it?
will new players stay away if we dont change it?

or why do we care about these issues at all?

think about that before you start to poke about in such ridiculuos matters as this is...

You raise some interesting points here.

This likely won't affect the size of the playerbase in any way, negatively or positively. So why do any of us care about these issues?

Because we care about the game. Some of us see a way to make it better without affecting anyone's experience, and some of us see a threat to the way the game is played; Perhaps not as bad as suggested compromises to make it easier for new players, but anything that affects the game we love should be treated with suspicion.

And you're right, it should be. That's why we're having a discussion and a poll. When I heard about changes to weapon damage a few months ago after 12 years of the game I nearly had a hemorrhage, but, after looking at the suggested changes, the reasons for them and the affects it would have on gameplay, I have become a staunch supporter.

I can almost guarantee that at least 23 of those 26 current votes for random damage are based solely on either "I don't care, so why should we change it" or "Nothing should ever be changed in qw for any reason" and neither of those reasons are good enough for me. It's up to you to decide if it's enough for you.
2009-01-08, 10:22
Member
15 posts

Registered:
Dec 2006
Stev wrote:
Peppe wrote:
then why so conserned about "fixing it"? what are the good reasons for changing it to a specific value?

I want to have the person who played better win, and this makes it more likely without changing the way you will play or enjoy the game. It's a perfect win/win situation in my opinion.

99% of the time the best person will win regardless of this change being made. It's little bits of luck that give this game the incredible wow factor and make it so exciting.
Last year, the champions league was decided on LUCK! Was it fair? Nope, Was it exciting? Extremely!

Why change it and risk losing that awesome 'chance' of something spectacular happening during a game. How many demos on ch-tv with omg drama would be just average,run of the mill demo, without such luck?

No matter what changes are made and however subtle you make them, it cannot be denied that you are watering down the best game ever made. One or two years down the line, with yet more changes, you wont even be playing QW but you will think you are! (this has already happened, anyone notice?)

Please leave this beautiful game alone!
_________________________
Never assume it's just a fart!!
2009-01-08, 11:51
Administrator
2059 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
bb wrote:
Why change it and risk losing that awesome 'chance' of something spectacular happening during a game. How many demos on ch-tv with omg drama would be just average,run of the mill demo, without such luck?

It's not like we would be removing the possibility of someone surviving with 20h (or even 1h) after a close battle in a 1on1. You would still have the same "wow" situations.

bb wrote:
No matter what changes are made and however subtle you make them, it cannot be denied that you are watering down the best game ever made. One or two years down the line, with yet more changes, you wont even be playing QW but you will think you are! (this has already happened, anyone notice?)

I guess your wish would be to play with qwcl.exe all over again? What ID Software made was a great foundation for the most awesome first person shooter game in the world. However, if we feel that we can fine tune this foundation by making subtle changes that will enhance the game and turn it into a well polished diamond, then why not? The discussions going on about every single tiny little change that affects the Quakeworld experience gets so much discussion on this very forum, to assure that the changes that are made are of benefit for the game as a whole, that i don't think any other game comes close to.
Regarding gameplay changes i'm pretty conservative myself, but on this specific topic i think it's safe to say that the change would only be for the good.
www.facebook.com/QuakeWorld
2009-01-08, 15:50
Member
462 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
bb wrote:
99% of the time the best person will win regardless of this change being made. It's little bits of luck that give this game the incredible wow factor and make it so exciting.
Last year, the champions league was decided on LUCK! Was it fair? Nope, Was it exciting? Extremely!

If deciding winner by luck is soo exciting, why not just toss a coin and save everyone some time. I'm pretty sure that for most people what gives this game the incredible wow factor is actually SKILL, not luck.

Quote:
Why change it and risk losing that awesome 'chance' of something spectacular happening during a game. How many demos on ch-tv with omg drama would be just average,run of the mill demo, without such luck?

Someone winning a tight rl fight with a bit higher random damage is somehow more spectacular than someone winning a tight rl fight by aiming just a little bit better? Please... As a spectator you wouldn't even be able to tell the difference, but as a player I want to win if I play better.

Quote:
No matter what changes are made and however subtle you make them, it cannot be denied that you are watering down the best game ever made. One or two years down the line, with yet more changes, you wont even be playing QW but you will think you are! (this has already happened, anyone notice?)

Of course it can be denied because the reality is exactly the opposite. Modern smooth and responsive QW is so much more enjoyable than 90's lagshit. If we're still playing two years from now, it can basically only mean that QW got even better during that time.
2009-01-08, 17:41
Member
793 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
blAze wrote:
bb wrote:
99% of the time the best person will win regardless of this change being made. It's little bits of luck that give this game the incredible wow factor and make it so exciting.
Last year, the champions league was decided on LUCK! Was it fair? Nope, Was it exciting? Extremely!

If deciding winner by luck is soo exciting, why not just toss a coin and save everyone some time. I'm pretty sure that for most people what gives this game the incredible wow factor is actually SKILL, not luck.

if the level of play is high enough, as in the cl, luck can be a huge 'wow' factor. so when do we see tVS play against ]sr[??
2009-01-08, 18:34
Member
1754 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
seems to me that most people doesn't care, so those who do care let them change it! I don't really see a any REAL arguments for not switching or switching the random damage for static damage. If it's so much about luck then let's make the game more "skillful" which seems to be the main reason for some.
2009-01-09, 02:37
Member
405 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Jjonez wrote:
Also, can we look at this from the other side maybe? Which game or sports exactly has managed to exclude any and all luck factors? Except for pure thinking games where time and physics don't really matter (chess or crosswords), I can't think of any.

Btw, some pure thinking games have luck factor too, - poker, and it's significant and exciting part of the game

But regarding topic I prefer static 110 direct hit.
<3
2009-01-09, 03:07
Administrator
2058 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
I hate poker for that exact reason. Fucking no-skill game.
2009-01-09, 03:28
News Writer
646 posts

Registered:
Mar 2006
here are my two cents:

the only real time i see this being any kind of issue, is in the "extreme". the extreme as the original post mentions is the direct quad rocket. with 110, quad rocket is 440, end of discussion. with 100+rand(20), quad rocket is 400+rand(80), up to 480 damage. max hp in quake is 450. as was said, it is unlikely you will be killed, but there is still this "luck chance"

imho, this "luck chance" should be left as it is. it gives more depth (if not skill depth) to the game. imagine someone getting hit with a quad rocket. with static damage, the result will always be the same. if you play the same scenario it will be the same each time. but if a quad direct rocket has a chance of killing, or a chance of not, and if someone got killed in such a situation and it was an important kill, or if someone survived and it was an important survival, it is much more interesting to analyze

in the end, i don't like randomness. but randomness which only matters in the extremes should be left alone imho (if noone noticed when it was changed, then it shouldn't be changed. if it ain't broke...)

:>
2009-01-09, 03:53
Member
1754 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
phils post made the most sense so far
2009-01-09, 07:58
Member
569 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
the quaddammage direct hit is 4*(100 + rand(20)) (I guess, without lookin in the code). Not that it would affect any of the discussed situations. :-)

Anyway is fine for me, but fixing the randomness of sg/ssg and gl seems more interesting to me.
2009-01-09, 10:45
Member
253 posts

Registered:
Nov 2007
sg/ssg randomness?? O_o
i tought that those are fix 24/56...
cheat 2 win!
2009-01-09, 11:08
Member
569 posts

Registered:
Feb 2006
Jon Snow wrote:
sg/ssg randomness?? O_o
i tought that those are fix 24/56...

atleast if i recall correctly, when you fire sg/ssg several times aiming on the same spot, the pellets will hit sligthly differently inside a defined radius. Maybe it is just the animation...
2009-01-09, 11:11
Member
1435 posts

Registered:
Jan 2006
Damage of (s)sg pellets is fixed, the placement is random. Start your own thread about that if you are interested (it's an interesting topic too, partly but not completely related to this one).
Now back on topic.

The Quad damage argument is one of (maybe the only one) that I accept and consider somewhat important (still it doesn't make me prefer random dh dmg).
But have you considered it fully? I mean phil presents the image of "boring always same" situation. But my spectating experience is different. Because getting 250/200 is not easy, it's not "now I'll get 250/200 and I'll pwn enemy quad, ok?".
Nope, first the player needs to be a bit "lucky" to grab both megas, don't get hurt in the meantime and find the quaded enemy sooner than his health drops below the critical border. And it of course still can mean nothing as the enemy quad can shoot him with two rockets anyway. This is not some "boring always the same" routine you would see happening in every match, is it?

Have you considered that maybe managing to get 250/200 and chasing down quad is worth always surviving his first quaded rocket? I'm not saying it is like that, but let's not go so brainlessly "OMG this would be different from now on, BAN CHANGES".
Maybe it will even bring something new to the game, maybe now players will start to exploit this scenario more, maybe it will bring even more entertainment. Of course in the end it's a matter of personal preference, but before you decide yourself, you should consider it all.
2009-01-09, 16:08
Member
384 posts

Registered:
Apr 2006
!phil wrote:
in the end, i don't like randomness. but randomness which only matters in the extremes should be left alone imho (if noone noticed when it was changed, then it shouldn't be changed. if it ain't broke...)

I don't think this only matters in extremes. Imagine a common scenario in 1on1 dm2. Both with RA and megahealth (Used only in this example because the higher the health, the higher the chance of a large variation). Fight ensues in big room. A couple of direct hits are landed. Who wins? The guy who managed the highest rolls of the dice. How many times do people walk away victorious from a dm2 fight with 1-40h after a couple of direct hits? It happens to me at least once every two games. In the unforgiving world of dm2, that can easily decide the entire game.

And, of course, these kind of bad beats are even more common in 4on4, where people walk away from rl fights with little health all the time. 20 damage is a HUGE variable that has probably decided many a close 4on4 in the past.
  131 posts on 5 pages  First page12345Last page