Movement Skill
Radix
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
Join Date: 2005-01-10 Member: 34654Members, Constellation
<div class="IPBDescription">Not an "Idea" or "Suggestion" per se</div>Two replies interested me from the "pistol sideways" thread:
<!--quoteo(post=1681616:date=Jun 20 2008, 01:07 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jun 20 2008, 01:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681616"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Watch NSJumped 1 & 2 and enhance NS movement skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and
<!--quoteo(post=1681528:date=Jun 19 2008, 04:49 AM:name=.trixX.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(.trixX. @ Jun 19 2008, 04:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681528"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Jedi Academy is a marvelous game regarding the movent of characters and acrobatic stunts, but this requires third person view.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to specifically draw discussion and attention to <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->good and bad ways to patch a game<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
I'm reminded by the latter post above of how Jedi Outcast had much of the skill "patched out" in versions 1.03 and 1.04. In 1.02 the game was (virtually) perfect. When you used a special attack (there were two primarily - a lunging downward hack with a saber, and a backspin with the same weapon) you had the option to pivot while doing so. The game then removed this functionality, first from the lunging attack in 1.03, then from the backspin in 1.04.
These removals were wholly unneccessary. They were applied, as far as I can see, purely to stop "spamming" of "lame" attacks, which is utterly stupid if it really is the case, because these attacks were <b>incredibly easy</b> to counter.
Contrast this technique with how Counter-Strike has been patched. Small changes were made, and one large change happened between 1.3 and 1.4, but the major gameplay elements remained intact. CS has enjoyed a long life that would have been fractured and segregated as was Jedi Outcast if it hadn't kept its "franchise" standardized throughout iterations.
The point I'm making is that the first type of patching mentioned is idiotic, and this post is intended to spark discussion about what constitutes a "good patch" vs a "bad patch". Such elements to consider are:
- Is the game broken?
- If not, - is any change necessary? People don't like disruption - if it is, then why implement it?
- If so, what needs to be changed?
- Is the change fun?
- Is the change "fixing a problem" or "creating a better game"?
- Is the change worth the developers' time? What else could it be spent on?
- Is the change going to break the game at the highest levels of play?
- Is the change going to make it prohibitively difficult for newbies to learn the game?
- Does the change respect the skill of the players?*
- Is the change thematically fitting with the game's look and feel?
- Is the change something the community wants? (This bullet purposely left last.)
* That is, will advanced players have to re-learn massive elements of the game to play it well? If so, the change should be a sequel, not a patch.
<!--quoteo(post=1681616:date=Jun 20 2008, 01:07 AM:name=aNytiMe)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(aNytiMe @ Jun 20 2008, 01:07 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681616"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Watch NSJumped 1 & 2 and enhance NS movement skill.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
and
<!--quoteo(post=1681528:date=Jun 19 2008, 04:49 AM:name=.trixX.)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(.trixX. @ Jun 19 2008, 04:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1681528"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Jedi Academy is a marvelous game regarding the movent of characters and acrobatic stunts, but this requires third person view.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'd like to specifically draw discussion and attention to <!--coloro:lime--><span style="color:lime"><!--/coloro-->good and bad ways to patch a game<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
I'm reminded by the latter post above of how Jedi Outcast had much of the skill "patched out" in versions 1.03 and 1.04. In 1.02 the game was (virtually) perfect. When you used a special attack (there were two primarily - a lunging downward hack with a saber, and a backspin with the same weapon) you had the option to pivot while doing so. The game then removed this functionality, first from the lunging attack in 1.03, then from the backspin in 1.04.
These removals were wholly unneccessary. They were applied, as far as I can see, purely to stop "spamming" of "lame" attacks, which is utterly stupid if it really is the case, because these attacks were <b>incredibly easy</b> to counter.
Contrast this technique with how Counter-Strike has been patched. Small changes were made, and one large change happened between 1.3 and 1.4, but the major gameplay elements remained intact. CS has enjoyed a long life that would have been fractured and segregated as was Jedi Outcast if it hadn't kept its "franchise" standardized throughout iterations.
The point I'm making is that the first type of patching mentioned is idiotic, and this post is intended to spark discussion about what constitutes a "good patch" vs a "bad patch". Such elements to consider are:
- Is the game broken?
- If not, - is any change necessary? People don't like disruption - if it is, then why implement it?
- If so, what needs to be changed?
- Is the change fun?
- Is the change "fixing a problem" or "creating a better game"?
- Is the change worth the developers' time? What else could it be spent on?
- Is the change going to break the game at the highest levels of play?
- Is the change going to make it prohibitively difficult for newbies to learn the game?
- Does the change respect the skill of the players?*
- Is the change thematically fitting with the game's look and feel?
- Is the change something the community wants? (This bullet purposely left last.)
* That is, will advanced players have to re-learn massive elements of the game to play it well? If so, the change should be a sequel, not a patch.
Comments
Lerk example:
1.04 lerk had old flight model, spikes, bite gas and umbra.
2.0 had old flight but removed bite. This was not a balance issue at the. It was actually stated that lerk bite was useless and not a balance issue. Only the better lerk players used bite and only they were agry about it. So this was party a balance issue in that the attemp was to make the lerk more divers and useful. All in all it was about the same. Weaker but equally diverse, just more different. I don't have a problem with making a class play different than before. The difficultly of using the lerk diversly required completly different tactics, but still equally diverse. Overall a little weaker, but that's balance.
3.0 new flight model implemented and bite reinstated. Bite was reimplemented after recognition that bite might be useful but a new flight model was created to make it easier for lerks to bite. The lerk has officially been nubified. A new model was implemented for the sake of simplification but at the sacrifice of diversity.
Umbra was repeatedly nerfed, but that's a balance issue and not nubification. I support balance patches and bug fixes.
I think this is a relavant topic because although the original patches made the game better, towards the end they just nubified the game, reduced diversity for the sake of simplicity, and ruined game balance. 2.0 era for the game overall.
Also, while my next paragraph doesn't necessarily relate to the thread's contents [good/bad patches] it is about 'movement skill' which is the topic of this thread.
I was kind of curious if the fast paced action of NS1 was a fluke due to the game being on the HL engine, or if it was developed with a fast paced gameplay in mind. For example: Bunny hopping is a huge part of movement skill and allows a player who's truly mastered it to bunny hop off rails, steps, whatever s/he can hop off of in order to get more distance between the aliens. This system was kind of the 'default' system for HL mods at the time so I hope that movement skill isn't overlooked for NS2 just because its on a different engine.
Movement skill is huge. A game just feels so much different when a developer removes a player's movement skill.
Lerk example:
1.04 lerk had old flight model, spikes, bite gas and umbra.
2.0 had old flight but removed bite. This was not a balance issue at the. It was actually stated that lerk bite was useless and not a balance issue. Only the better lerk players used bite and only they were agry about it. So this was party a balance issue in that the attemp was to make the lerk more divers and useful. All in all it was about the same. Weaker but equally diverse, just more different. I don't have a problem with making a class play different than before. The difficultly of using the lerk diversly required completly different tactics, but still equally diverse. Overall a little weaker, but that's balance.
3.0 new flight model implemented and bite reinstated. Bite was reimplemented after recognition that bite might be useful but a new flight model was created to make it easier for lerks to bite. The lerk has officially been nubified. A new model was implemented for the sake of simplification but at the sacrifice of diversity.
Umbra was repeatedly nerfed, but that's a balance issue and not nubification. I support balance patches and bug fixes.
I think this is a relavant topic because although the original patches made the game better, towards the end they just nubified the game, reduced diversity for the sake of simplicity, and ruined game balance. 2.0 era for the game overall.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I don't understand how the 3.0 lerk flight model change can be considered "nubifying". Yes, it made the lerk easier to use offensively, but the change greatly increased the lerk's maximum(as in, for pros) close-combat fighting ability. It was an overall improvement to the lerk class, allowing nubs and pros alike to do more with the lerk than was possible with the old flight model.
For example, if the damage on the LMG was doubled, nubs would kill skulks easier, but so would pros-in this example the pros actually gain more benefit because much of the challenge in shooting a skulk is locking on to it. Making something work better isn't necessarily catering to nubs.
Also I agree with the topic. One of, if not the most important, the main reasons NS is still fun and other FPSes aren't is because of the role movement plays in NS. Players can always get better(well, to a point) at the movement in NS, and it's something that fits seamlessly into the gameplay because it's an underlying base of the game-everyone moves. I worry that NS2 might try to abandon bunnyhopping and other jumping maneuvers-not that that's the only part of movement, proper positioning, and re-positioning in the middle of a battle is also key-and replace it with something that would seem forced-some sort of item or such. Please note that movement-based skill works so well because the only actions required are ones that all but the worst players are already doing-running, strafing, turning and jumping, and the skill increase is gained by simply doing those actions more precisely.
I've always thought it was a necessary change for the good of the overall gameplay. First of all it removed the early game carryform effect. No more lerks going 12 - 2 in first 8 minutes. Another reason was that the 3.1 pancaking relied quite heavily on bugged hitboxes. I recall Bugstah saying that the method of pancaking to every lmg and hoping your hitbox isn't where it is supposed to be got quite boring after a while. Now the lerk is maybe a little too passive lifeform in general and the 3.1 lerks were fun to shoot at, but I think the improvement in the overal ns was worth it.
Now Lerks can be played offensively, for semi-offensive scouting or purely as support classes. This allows experienced Lerks to play offy if they want to and it allows newer players to get to grips with the Lerk by playing in a more standoffish style but still helping the team with Spore chip damage. I myself may take Lerk early to do quick laps of the map and find out which RTs need chomping on and which areas of the map Marines are pushing.
The fact is the Lerk has been made more versatile for a wider section of the overall NS playerbase. I think it's far more important to let more players enjoy playing a different class according to their own style and get good at playing it than for it to require complicated button presses and in-depth knowledge of engine exploits for it to be effective.
Basically the lerk was able to do all the before, now it only has less mobility and survivability. The change balanced the competetive game nicely, but made lerk even more off a glass cannon for pubbers. Right now its the most fragile 30 res you can have unless your team parasites a lot or the enemy can't aim. In addition I think its now possible to compensate the lack of accelration by jumpscripts (3 jump works a bit like a pscript on this, right?), which isn't my idea of leveling the playing field.
Nevertheless, it was all very much worth the change.
WRT to movement I try to look at "new" features with the following priorities weighted equally:
Does it provide depth to keep players in the game?/Is it easy enough to draw players into the game?
I look at it as a scale with each on a side. I would promote a feature that adds a lot of depth to the game even if it wasn't easy to master as long as I thought the benefits outweighed the negatives. For example, bunny hop fails the easy-to-learn big time, especially because it's heavily FPS dependent, but is worth the depth it brings to movement. I would love for it to be replaced with something better, but it's definitely better than nothing.
As far as movement, I enjoy good movement. Some games forgo this for hiding behind walls at long distance and relying on pixel recognition and a steady hand. I enjoy jumping to dodge the skulk or flying as a Lerk avoiding fire. As far as bunnyhopping, I'm not a super huge fan after this one guy managed to kite me as a marine shooting my skulk avatar. However, I do see it's ability to allow skill depth and its versatility in allowing movement and control in the game. Much like <b>locallyunscene</b>, I would like something a bit better due to its high initiation price, but it's a pretty good system unlike the restrictions in CS. TF2 is interesting due to the varying movement speeds, but no bunnyhopping speed increase. So I like going Scout and dashing through the enemy lines. Heavy is too slow for me, and soldier now don't take reduced dmg for rocket jumps, so I tend to only play them if needed.
My main concern with patches is it can seem to allow developers to be complacent because its a saft net for any errors thaey make, so we seem to get a lot of games with bugs in them. The flip side of the coin is that they can correct unforseen errors, i dont expect UW to be complacent but it hasnt stopped many games from being released unfinished in the past.
inevitably players are going to find strategies in ns2 that the devs never thought of, hopefully these stratergies will add diversity and fun to the game, but if they dont the patching system will give the devs some control over the games future, whether this is good or bad depends on your point of view on the specific stratergy or action they are altering. Whos view is correct, i dont know
Check out this thread: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=104340" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...howtopic=104340</a>
and add it (with pictures or videos), if you so please.
<a href="http://youtube.com/watch?v=6Y5H5X1VhJ4" target="_blank">Example at 45 second mark. </a>
I think the question here is the tradeoff between depth and intuitive gameplay. Yes, depth is a good thing because it adds longevity by giving people who play the game for a long time ways to keep learning and improving. However, mechanics that are glitchy and/or unintuitive are not a good way to accomplish this. Intuitive depth is something that follows naturally from playing the game and being familiar with its intricacies. Developing your aim, learning combat tactics, memorizing strategies/counters, etc. Counterintuitive depth, on the other hand, is stuff like bunnyhopping which does not follow game logic and can not realistically be learned except from outside sources. It creates an artificial gap between people who actively seek tricks to improve their game and people who just want to play.
I think that all players should be playing within the same set of game rules. Encouraging the use of exploits or questionable tricks because they add depth just ostracizes normal players. It's not fun to play against someone who can do things that are physically impossible for your character unless you dedicate hours outside the game to learning it.
TLDR: I'm in favor of movement skill, but only if it's clearly defined and intentional within the game's controls. Things like bunnyhopping should be removed as they're found.