Quote
Ye, i was thinking along the lines of maybe just disallowing sprinting/sliding/... in that order. E.g. with the "lowest" scope you could still slide, if you started it before scoping, with the next higher one your slide would be slowed down. Also keep in mind that i want this effect only to take place while actually scoped, with no effects on being not scoped. so nothing like a stamina change when scoping or something silly like that.
Something just occurred to me. Do you think we could handle the concept of added weapon-weight if it was applied appropriately and in a way in which players could still bunnyhop with the SR8... just not as fast? In all seriousness, it's not overly difficult to switch between weapons and to practice holding only a knife to jump and to switch to a scope before peaking pillars for instance... but then again, it would kind of neuter SR8 battles... and, well, basically the entire game.
Maybe we should leave movement be. I think we've forgotten the initial difficulty faced by each player in learning to accept the physics of the game in the first place. Let us not disregard that transitioning from a popular game is bound top resent a big change. Idk if I'm just dumb, but I think it can be very overwhelming for the first few plays... Especially when the person realizes most if not all of the traditional aspects of FPS are still in-tact and that using the physics of the game is probably a good idea. Which means learning to appreciate the game itself. By making this process overly complicated, I have my doubts that newer players will take the time to learn and eventually give up and move onto the next big studio game... whereas, if we make the physics 'accessible' and well, simple (by our measure), each player who understands the concept of bunnyhopping and who sees someone wall-running will be like
. ...
...
before feeling compelled to try it (dedicating time to practicing it).
Quote
While i see what you are going for here, i'm not sure if i like it. As i said, I dont want the "classic way" (so 4.x style) to be affected in any way. Thus, i dont want to "force" players into using certain items (even though with the increased points they surely could do so without drawback). I find the ac
Yeah, honestly... I think I hate games that incorporate the
illusion of choice to rope people into learning the meta (while enticing them with flashy bullshit graphics and fake achievements). The game industry is apparently 'full' of seemingly skilled people who are able and willing to employ subversive mind-control tactics which target and go to work on our very nature... so, a game can be really attractive for young kids (who come to recognize yet another similar reoccurring pattern of button-pushing to recieve pleasure without having to think very hard) and unsuspecting parents who work and want their kids to be successful and happy... while meanwhile, we see a grotesque image of materialistic thinking and apathetic exploitation.
The last thing I want is to associate Urban Terror with ^... so for some reason, by default, it almost seems like a good idea to leave the game just as it is both in artful silent protest by providing contrast and well, beacuse it offers us everything we need every round allowing us to focus on what the game is really about... (there's no emoticon for the combination of regret, melancholy, understanding disappointment and unconditional acceptance with knowledge of having found the greatest FPS experience while trying to look modest without influencing anyone but secretly wanting to give the game to everybody you meet and realizing that you're not being realistic which you imagine takes a toll on your emotional sensibility over time but you're sticking it out because you know there is no other option and Resurgence is coming soon.)
Quote
This is why i want the current playstyle to stay viable and as unchanged as possible. In regards to scopes that would mean they basically get added for new players, while every (then) old-school player could just tap away with the perfect 1st bullet accuracy guns have anways. Sure more items are bound to develop a seemingly even more narrow meta, but look at things like the silencer. Nobody would call it OP, even though it literally has no drawbacks (except for you maybe not realizing how much you spray....). Yet its not nearly as used as a Kevlar. And virtually everybody has a helmet.
Perhaps I'm stating the obvious, but this would only just be funny and provide comedic relief for anyone who is aware of games at all. Although, lots of people use lasers... Idk.
It occurred to me after I posted and went back to watching basketball that I had disregarded the silencer. Initially, I thought it would be funny to pretend I'd done so on purpose, but upon revisit I think I'll be honest with you and say I forgot about it.
Sidenote: Silencer is the door to the Assassin meta-class
Quote
This paragraph sums it up rather nicely.
Thanks! I thought it would be too much, but then I realized that reading the paragraph was paralleling the actual situation and thus playing into the imagining of it so I was like haha... screw revisional editing in this case.
Quote
We kind of have roles already, there are medkits. Yet i doubt this would develop to such a level where you would "call over the sniper". Calling for a medic should still be a thing though. i actually dont want everybody to run around with a medkit (even though that would be pretty usefull). Your choices should have a meaning, instead of just being the "go to" loadout.
Yes, team-comms could get very interesting, as could the game itself...but only if we incorporate the idea of loose classes (as in support, entry, etc.) into 'marketing' (communication surrounding the game) such that it would be adapted by most players who are interested in competitive play and featured in media.
Sidenote: The Sniper is an interesting role indeed, because this player must often make quick decisions in difficult situations such as "I made my pick, now what? Team?" Or "I missed my pick... Do I fall back and rotate somewhere? Team?"
Sidenote: be honest, how many assassins do you see?
Quote
Lets be fair: a smoke will never be a wall in UrT. In CS:GO this works since players are so much slower. If you run through a smoke, you get heard and then prefired/aimed. If you walk through it, the defender has enough time to look left and right to cover other angles.
For incendiaries i would vote that players should actually be able to cross them in one walljump. They would end up being an area denial tool to flush people out of cover. Which pretty much is what nades do already, with the difference that nades will basically 1shot you.
I hated smokes when they dropped my 70FPS to like 30... so, of course, they ended up being like basically flasbangs for players with older computers. Funny, but not funny.
If we can reduce the area of the smoke, and also allow for the option of lowering the quality of it without providing an exploit, I think the use of smokes would be permissible in Urban Terror.
Incendiaries would basically either defeat the purpose of playing spots like Window on Turnpike or Balcony on Casa or make the game whole lot more interesting. I'm thinking maybe a player could sneak around and molotov balcony to initate a team-rush while the sniper is disabled (this, while cross-cover is provided by teammates at narrow and/or mid plus your sniper rushing timbers after clearing it or whatever...)
Sidenote: What about CTF? Defensive incendiary to protect flag?
Quote
This is a concern. Grenades could end up so cheap that you could just overwhelm a defending team with utility. I guess something like an increasing cost per grenade could be an idea? So 1 for the 1st, 2 for the 2nd, .... ?
Edit: I'm not sure what to make of this. Upon revisiting this topic, I think that allowing 2 HE grenades at the cost of equivalence to a medkit or laser (or body armor) is balanced and seems fair enough... though, if we look closely and use context, it may lean in the direction of being a little liberal in allowing two grenades per round each round... by lending greater significance to each grenade I think they seem both more appealing and balanced, however I wonder how we might do this.
I now have the benefit of having reading Frankie's post and I think that load-out selection based on weight may just be the answer we're looking for.
Quote
The biggest problem with the flash in 4.x (even though they are technically disabled...) is how fast UrT is. Not only players, but also the grenades. In two ways actually. First off, they travels quicker. Secondly, you can time grenades in UrT (at least HEs and flashes). This means that whats "easy" in CS:GO, to dodge flashes by looking away at the right moment, is basically impossibly in UrT. Hence i see flashguards as a requirement, even more so if stupid things like tac-goggles stay. (maybe make those more vulnerable to getting blinded?). Both items should obviously lock eachother out. Alternatively/additionally i guess a system where you cant cook flashes would be worth a thought.
Again, I worry that this is too much change too soon. I can't see flash-guards as being overly controversial and while they would be fun, I don't think they should be enabling flashbangs... then again, I'm not sure... but tbh I can't see a situation in which I would be flashed and say "oh, yeah, no that was legit. He got me; well-played sir, well-played." in Urban Terror.
Sidenote: Could identifying players who don't use flash-guards and targeting them using team-comm be entertaining to watch by adding another dynamic or would it just be annoying? Also, if everyone used flags-guards... iunno, what would a flashbang look like? How would this affect meta?
Sidenote: Because cooking nades and throwing them requires skill and practice, it is acceptable to me to die to a grenade every so often. I just want to avoid a nuking of the map every round.
Quote
Sidenote: i fear our posts end up way to long for anybody else to read..... :S
Part of the fate of accepting our role as long-distance writers is incorporating our appreciation for the people who are having to read our writing into the way we write. I think we're both doing a good thing here.
Conclusion: I imagine that most of the 'countering' would take place very early on and in specific situations during scrim/matchplay before returning to a familiar perfect balance... if we could incorporate additional items in a well-planned manner with specific costs and benefits in an overall balanced way (I'm thinking this would be very difficult) I'm all for it... but only if things aren't
too complicated.
This post has been edited by Vortex2: 26 February 2017 - 07:24 AM