137 replies to this topic

[ticklemyiguana]

 

As a final note, I'll conclude that Counter Strike is a slow shooter.  Does that make it bad?  No, not at all.  However, movement speed certainly factors into a game's skill ceiling.  Games with more movement, as you've even agreed to, have higher skill ceilings.  Does this mean that Counter Strike doesn't have a skill ceiling?  fuzzy bunny no.  That's not what I'm saying, and it's not what Nept is saying either.  I think you're just taking personal offense to Nept's comments about Counter Strike being slow in comparison to other shooters.  That's all I'm seeing here.  

Woah woah woah. I absolutely did not agree to that. Movement is just a single aspect of a game and is not the sole determining factor of the game's final skill ceiling - in fact I find it to be kind of negligible in terms of a games skill ceiling, only the skill floor is really effected. I'm sure you didn't mean to paraphrase my words as such, but as it stands, you've misquoted me pretty severely, as my opinion in this specific case is the opposite.

My response was initially geared to Nept basically saying it's a slow game because the movement is slower than UT, and responding in kind to him putting the game down -  partially taken from the condescending tone of the response, and partially taken due to every conversation I've had with him regarding games reflecting an opinion of if it's not really fast he's not interested and the game is bad.

 

Actually, I'd move to say that depending on the game, an increase in movement speed may very well decrease a game's skill ceiling by giving a single aspect of play priority and therefore lowering the emphasis on the mental aspects of a game, or at the very least, decreasing the time with which the mental aspects can play out, which limits their scope and effectiveness.

 

It may not be the most viable comparison, but lets look at Starcraft as an example. I would say, on the whole, unit movement is slower than what you would find in Quake or UT - however, since the game isn't instantaneous, there's room for the player to work on other things during troop movement, and as a whole, the skill ceiling of SC is increased greatly. I mean, pro SC players are putting in hundreds of actions per minute, and though some of it's the occasional redundant click, if you sped up movement in the game, the player wouldn't be able to do some of the things that makes SC so difficult to manage, and nor would his opponent. I feel it's a shaky example, but if you can see what I'm arguing, you can apply this to most FPS games that have any reasonable level of complexity or teamwork, in that while moving, you can be analyzing the situation, calling positions to your team mates, or even discussing the next round. These aren't nonexistent in faster moving FPS's, but the promotion of any of these means that each engagement will have more riding on it, more thought put into it, and a greater level of strategic intensity, which I would argue raises the skill ceiling - this all in addition to positioning mattering just a bit more due to it taking longer to retreat.

Edited by ticklemyiguana, 16 December 2015 - 08:25 PM.

[Xacius]

Woah woah woah. I absolutely did not agree to that. Movement is just a single aspect of a game and is not the sole determining factor of the game's final skill ceiling - in fact I find it to be kind of negligible in terms of a games skill ceiling, only the skill floor is really effected. I'm sure you didn't mean to paraphrase my words as such, but as it stands, you've misquoted me pretty severely, as my opinion in this specific case is the opposite.

But you said "I definitely agree that aim is harder at higher speeds, both in terms of the shooter and the target."

Are you saying that, even if a game is harder, that doesn't necessarily mean it has a higher skill ceiling?  

 

Movement is a huge factor when it comes to a game's skill ceiling, especially an FPS.  Are you just trolling, or do you actually, seriously believe that movement speed doesn't factor into the skill-ceiling of a game?    

Edited by Xacius, 16 December 2015 - 08:32 PM.

[CraftyDus]

Couldn't have these arguments anywhere else

 

I didn't even get into the high ttk and the weak splashy weapons comparison, which is as deep into the pace of a game debate as connery was into trebek's mother

 

I'm gonna miss you nerds when the lights go out on this thing

 

Oh and there's nothing slower than that Blops3 server tic rate; there are shots I made in that game a month ago that I'm still waiting for the registration of.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

@ OP:

 

Honestly UT is probly your best bet. The movement systems do have a number of differences but also a number of similarities. There are other arena shoots out there with movement systems, but none that really come into play during combat quite as much.

 

@ Nerds:

 

Counter strike is soooooooo boring. I feel like half the people who play it, only play it because it has a sizable competitive following, and waving peens around on the internet is just too great to pass up. In any online shooter I play, I like to be competitive, but I'd never seek out a game because it's competitive. I have to be interested in the base game to be interested in the challenge. Not to say you couldn't be interested in baseline csgo. But if you are, your tastes are bland and terrible.

 

@ Anyone still reading:

 

There are other movement models in arena shooters. My favorites offer a high degree of air control. The models usually aren't as involved mid combat as the UT model, but I generally just find them more fun to perform over all. In fact they can be so fun, sometimes you don't even need people to shoot at, you can just load an empty server and hop around.

 

(beginning of this video is very fuzzy, rest of it is only kind of fuzzy, sorry)

 

https://youtu.be/fYLKJ3UZNa0?t=26s

 

Fortress Forever has always been my go to. It's all about going fast and doing sweet moves. The movement is very smooth and very fun.

 

Then there's CPMA:

 

https://youtu.be/g7RstH423lw?t=25s

 

It's worth noting the difference aircontrol makes between cpma and other versions of quake like QL or Q3. In QL/3 there's virtually no air control, so you can go fast, but only in straight lines. In CPMA, and FF, you can go fast in circles, half circles, squiggly lines. Like I said it's an amazing movement system, and it makes just moving around maps feel insanely smooth and fun.

 

But CPMA is pretty much dead so you have to play it's almost equally dead remake Reflex. Which despite what some people might want you to desperately believe, is just a slight rebalancing of of CPMA's stats.

 

Oh yeah, also FF is pretty much dead, so don't play that. Go play UT4, it's really your only option.

[ticklemyiguana]

But you said "I definitely agree that aim is harder at higher speeds, both in terms of the shooter and the target."
Are you saying that, even if a game is harder, that doesn't necessarily mean it has a higher skill ceiling?

Movement is a huge factor when it comes to a game's skill ceiling, especially an FPS. Are you just trolling, or do you actually, seriously believe that movement speed doesn't factor into the skill-ceiling of a game?

No, I'm saying that games are more than pointing at something and shooting at it. You could have a game where you move really really fast, but it's a comparably easy game because if you shoot someone once you win the game and the maps are all completely open and everyone just flies everywhere and everyone has fully automatic weapons that are accurate no matter what your movement

I think movement speed itself, independent of difficulty aiming - which also isn't determined solely by movement speed, has a very questionable effect on a game's skill ceiling, for the reasons listed above. It's hard to say that a stat that's applied to everyone in the game somehow makes the game inherently harder or easier, or raises or lowers the skill ceiling, but I would definitely say that any single factor that detracts from multiple other factors in a game has a potential to decrease the skill ceiling. High movement speed definitely, absolutely, inherently detracts from the necessity of both the timing of coordinated attacks as well as positioning itself. Your team can retreat easier if the attack fails, they can get there quicker if someone fuzzy bunnys up and starts it early, and if your position is off, it's easier to adjust.

I'm not saying that increased movement speed definitely detracts from a game's skill ceiling, but I am saying that as a blanket statement, increasing it doesn't automatically increase the skill ceiling, and depending on the game, is just as likely to decrease it.

@ Nerds:

Counter strike is soooooooo boring. I feel like half the people who play it, only play it because it has a sizable competitive following, and waving peens around on the internet is just too great to pass up. In any online shooter I play, I like to be competitive, but I'd never seek out a game because it's competitive. I have to be interested in the base game to be interested in the challenge. Not to say you couldn't be interested in baseline csgo. But if you are, your tastes are bland and terrible.

Your opinion is noted and bad. You probably think chess is boring too, you uncultured swine.

Edited by ticklemyiguana, 16 December 2015 - 09:22 PM.

[CraftyDus]

you guys don't know what you're missing out on

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

Your opinion is noted and bad. You probably think chess is boring too, you uncultured swine.

 

I like chess.

[comic_sans]

cs is boring

[ticklemyiguana]

cs is boring

ur boring

[CoshCaust]

A derailed thread in a section with no rails is a thread on its rails i suppose 

Quite the debate in here- and some strong opinions on CS, haha.

 

Anyway here's a game from my very early gaming career (like i barely remember playing) that you all may be interested in- i think i'll be buying into it...like after i post this comment because i forgot to buy in already...

 

Aquanox- a submarine FPS whose devs focused mostly on story in the past, but will have multiplayer, and the newest version (only relatively new version there is) is in production and the devs appear to be listening attentively to what the fans want from the game:

https://www.kickstar...ox-deep-descent

Buy in and tell them to build mechanics in the realm of Hawken ;D

Edited by CoshCaust, 16 December 2015 - 10:32 PM.

[Nept]

 

High movement speed definitely, absolutely, inherently detracts from the necessity of both the timing of coordinated attacks as well as positioning itself.

 

That's inaccurate.  The Omniscient used to time, to the second, tripartite cap routes during Fallen Empire: Legions competition.  And our cappers were travelling 250-400 m/s.  In fact, anyone with passing knowledge of competitive Tribes, Unreal Tournament, Quake, or Unreal 2 XMP would take issue with your silly statement.

 

*Edit*

 

When you're assessing the importance of coordination and positioning, you must consider speed relative to map size.  And since many movement mechanics are geometry-dependent, you must also take into account map structure.  Weapon functionality is yet another consideration.  The Shock Rifle, for example, meshes well with Unreal Tournament's maneuverability and map design.  In slower games, it would provide too much control; it's counterbalanced, though, by UT's rapid directional shifts and map-dependent movement. 

Edited by Nept: Ultra Lord of the God-Kings, 16 December 2015 - 11:15 PM.

[ticklemyiguana]

That's inaccurate.  The Omniscient used to time, to the second, tripartite cap routes during Fallen Empire: Legions competition.  And our cappers were travelling 250-400 m/s.  In fact, anyone with passing knowledge of competitive Tribes, Unreal Tournament, Quake, or Unreal 2 XMP would take issue with your silly statement.

Uh, congrats?
I don't see how that even slightly counters the argument that the faster you move, the faster you're in position, making it easier to get in and out of position and ensure that everyone is in position when necessary.
In CS, when on a team we time our travel times and grenades to detonate at the exact same moment, and to be fair, a second, or even half a second off is too much as someone can turn away from a flash in that time.
I mean, come on Nept, you should know with all your fast paced gaming experience that "to the second" is a pretty wide margin.

[Nept]

Uh, congrats?
I don't see how that even slightly counters the argument that the faster you move, the faster you're in position, making it easier to get in and out of position and ensure that everyone is in position when necessary.

 

I felt that saying "to the millisecond" sounded too pedantic.  As for the rest, I've stated that pretty clearly in the edit.  If you still require help, let me know.

[Silverfire]

ur all nerds

stfu

Edited by Silverfire, 16 December 2015 - 11:25 PM.

[dorobo]

what i remember is that in the olden days every true quaker hated cs :)

[Nept]

Aquanox- a submarine FPS whose devs focused mostly on story in the past, but will have multiplayer, and the newest version (only relatively new version there is) is in production and the devs appear to be listening attentively to what the fans want from the game:

https://www.kickstar...ox-deep-descent

Buy in and tell them to build mechanics in the realm of Hawken ;D

 

Hopefully that turns out well.  Had high hopes for Miner Wars back in the day, but that turned out pretty poorly.

[Xacius]

Uh, congrats?
I don't see how that even slightly counters the argument that the faster you move, the faster you're in position, making it easier to get in and out of position and ensure that everyone is in position when necessary.
In CS, when on a team we time our travel times and grenades to detonate at the exact same moment, and to be fair, a second, or even half a second off is too much as someone can turn away from a flash in that time.
I mean, come on Nept, you should know with all your fast paced gaming experience that "to the second" is a pretty wide margin.

If everyone is moving at the same speed, the enemy team can respond to that positioning just as quickly.  In fact, I'd argue that there's more of a skill ceiling involved in rapid re-positioning and quick response than slowly executing a pre-planned position.  

 

Even if the positioning component is compromised from faster movement, as per your suggestion, the increase in movement alone makes the mechanical component of the game harder (at least concerning aim).  You yourself admitted that.  

Edited by Xacius, 16 December 2015 - 11:52 PM.

[Sokram]

If  "Strike Vector" were alive....Then i would suggest it.   I call it air HAWKEN.

[CoshCaust]

Hopefully that turns out well.  Had high hopes for Miner Wars back in the day, but that turned out pretty poorly.

Well the goal has been met for the actual production of the game- so from what i understand, it is at least a guaranteed release...but yeah we'll see how it plays out.

 

If  "Strike Vector" were alive....Then i would suggest it.   I call it air HAWKEN.

Ah yeah i checked that game out a bit ago, definitely looked appealing.

Out of curiosity, how 'dead' is it compared to Hawken? laughs nervously

Edited by CoshCaust, 17 December 2015 - 03:11 AM.

[Aregon]

CS:GO looks bland and boring though. It is grey, it is dirty, it is filthy. Same description of how my mother described my father after the divorce.

jk my mother calls everyone that

Edited by Sir Aregon, 17 December 2015 - 03:43 AM.

[Meraple]

Out of curiosity, how 'dead' is it compared to Hawken? laughs nervously

Well...

[PoopSlinger]

Moral of the story(as its been said many times):  CS is pretty lame

 

No, I'm saying that games are more than pointing at something and shooting at it. You could have a game where you move really really fast, but it's a comparably easy game because if you shoot someone once you win the game and the maps are all completely open and everyone just flies everywhere and everyone has fully automatic weapons that are accurate no matter what your movement

I think movement speed itself, independent of difficulty aiming - which also isn't determined solely by movement speed, has a very questionable effect on a game's skill ceiling, for the reasons listed above. It's hard to say that a stat that's applied to everyone in the game somehow makes the game inherently harder or easier, or raises or lowers the skill ceiling, but I would definitely say that any single factor that detracts from multiple other factors in a game has a potential to decrease the skill ceiling. High movement speed definitely, absolutely, inherently detracts from the necessity of both the timing of coordinated attacks as well as positioning itself. Your team can retreat easier if the attack fails, they can get there quicker if someone fuzzy bunnys up and starts it early, and if your position is off, it's easier to adjust.

I'm not saying that increased movement speed definitely detracts from a game's skill ceiling, but I am saying that as a blanket statement, increasing it doesn't automatically increase the skill ceiling, and depending on the game, is just as likely to decrease it.


Your opinion is noted and bad. You probably think chess is boring too, you uncultured swine.

 

High movement speeds doesn't detract from fuzzy bunny.  It just shortens your decision making time.  Which IMHO raises skill ceiling, by forcing the player to pull off harder aiming requirements and come to an acceptable decision in a much shorter amount of time.

 

Also CS:GO is all hitscan.  Have you tried BF4 or any game where bullets take time to hit people?  Its fun as fuzzy bunny getting a 200+m headshot by shooting way out in front of a guy and watching him run into a bullet.  Its way harder to learn a shooter where every weapons bullets behave differently.

 

Now that I mention that, Cosh, if BF4 goes on sale BUY IT.  Its a fuzzy bunnyn blast and they've fixed that game so plays really really well now.  I almost exclusively play the 64 person conquest matches for the mayhem they provide.

Edited by PoopSlinger, 17 December 2015 - 06:14 AM.

[Hyginos]

I'd just like to add that the player velocity only has an impact on the pace and aiming difficulty of the game insofar as it determines angular velocity relative to the other players. Two players that can only move withing a few degrees of parallel of each other might as well be static until they hit speeds measured as fractions of C.

 

Watching pro csgo leads me to believe that engagements are between mostly static targets, and are determined largely by initiative, reflex, and spray control. Comparing it to something like what we see in the CPMA video MSV posted in which players have to track a target almost 180 degrees in like 5 frames is silly.

 

 

 

Out of curiosity, how 'dead' is it compared to Hawken? laughs nervously

 

I booted it up about a month ago to find exactly 0 players in servers.

 

 

Oh and there's nothing slower than that Blops3 server tic rate; there are shots I made in that game a month ago that I'm still waiting for the registration of.

 

I'm told AW had an even slower tick. Like 16 or something.

[ticklemyiguana]

If everyone is moving at the same speed, the enemy team can respond to that positioning just as quickly.  In fact, I'd argue that there's more of a skill ceiling involved in rapid re-positioning and quick response than slowly executing a pre-planned position.  
 
Even if the positioning component is compromised from faster movement, as per your suggestion, the increase in movement alone makes the mechanical component of the game harder (at least concerning aim).  You yourself admitted that.

I would argue that patience is a skill most people who play video games just don't have. I would argue that emphasizing subtle differences in weapons and engagement types is comparable, and I would also argue that if you can't actually see what I'm talking about, then it needs to be played. I don't have the ungodly amount of hours that you have on UT, but I've been participating in UT4 since it first came out in alpha, played Toxikk for the duration that it existed with any hype, and prefaced that with some basic play on UT2k4, and I will say the two types of games are hard to compare, and possibly the least divisive part of that is the movement speed - hence my stance that movement speed is somewhat negligible when comparing game differences and skill ceilings. In playing, I don't feel any more or less accurate in one game than another, and in some cases the abundance of splash damage weaponry makes those games feel like it's even easier to hit someone.

All I've got time for right now.

[hellc9943]

TLDR; CS sucked back in 1999 and still does.

[n3onfx]

 

It may not be the most viable comparison, but lets look at Starcraft as an example. I would say, on the whole, unit movement is slower than what you would find in Quake or UT - however, since the game isn't instantaneous, there's room for the player to work on other things during troop movement, and as a whole, the skill ceiling of SC is increased greatly. I mean, pro SC players are putting in hundreds of actions per minute, and though some of it's the occasional redundant click, if you sped up movement in the game, the player wouldn't be able to do some of the things that makes SC so difficult to manage, and nor would his opponent. I feel it's a shaky example, but if you can see what I'm arguing, you can apply this to most FPS games that have any reasonable level of complexity or teamwork, in that while moving, you can be analyzing the situation, calling positions to your team mates, or even discussing the next round. These aren't nonexistent in faster moving FPS's, but the promotion of any of these means that each engagement will have more riding on it, more thought put into it, and a greater level of strategic intensity, which I would argue raises the skill ceiling - this all in addition to positioning mattering just a bit more due to it taking longer to retreat.

 

Having played an ungodly amount of Brood War and Starcraft 2 and played amateur leagues in it (part of a small scale team as well that later joined a professional team a couple months after I stopped playing SC2 as much) and being ranked in the top 2% of EU servers when I played it the most, I strongly feel there is no comparison that can be made between competitive RTS and FPS in terms of "speed" even though I'm very far from having the same experience in FPS'.

 

And that's because what defines "speed" is very different in both genres, speed in an RTS is not so much the mechanical side of it (yes we've all seen the videos of monster Korean players that look like they have tentacles in place of fingers) that while it is a requirement to be able to play competitive SC, is not the most important factor since most top players have similar APM, there is a point where your body just can't move your fingers any faster. Taking that into account there is a cap on the purely mechanical part of "speed".

 

What separates the pro tier from the god tier in RTS is more the speed at which you can multitask and adapt, constantly switching between lines of thought, situations more than once a second and being able to manage all that without that fragile balance falling apart. You have to manage your macro (making gatherers, monitoring the amount needed on each base which constantly changes, transferring them, balancing your minerals/gas, making supply, making additional bases), your minimap,  your scouting, your micro (often in several places at the same time with multi-pronged attacks and drops in the example of SC) split between your command groups AND adapt your game plan as the situation changes.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "speed" requirement in FPS' is less straining on that multitask part as opposed to being more focused on adapting your gameplan and reacting to what you see in front of you/what your teamates tell you. You could I guess make a parallel with micro as in you need to adapt your aim and movement as fast as possible, micro is the closest comparison you get in RTS games to "snap aiming".

 

So while you point at unit movement being slower in RTS I don't think it's a good example of why it makes the skill ceiling higher since you often manage several unit groups at the same time and also have to manage individual units (Blink Stalkers, Marines stutter stepping, Baneling splits are 3 examples of things you have to manage while a fight is going on and you are controlling your other unit groups AND keeping production up via command groups for production buildings). The speed of multitasking is so much higher in RTS that I feel you can't draw a comparison on required mechanics with FPS on that front.

 

 

 

It may not be the most viable comparison, but lets look at Starcraft as an example. I would say, on the whole, unit movement is slower than what you would find in Quake or UT - however, since the game isn't instantaneous, there's room for the player to work on other things during troop movement, and as a whole, the skill ceiling of SC is increased greatly.

 

 

The speed at which players have to multitask in StarCraft actually raises the skill ceiling and is what separates the good from the best.

 

 

 

edit; Sorry for the wall of text, but I have a soft spot for SC :3

Edited by neon, 17 December 2015 - 04:57 PM.

[Xacius]

I would argue that patience is a skill most people who play video games just don't have. I would argue that emphasizing subtle differences in weapons and engagement types is comparable, and I would also argue that if you can't actually see what I'm talking about, then it needs to be played. I don't have the ungodly amount of hours that you have on UT, but I've been participating in UT4 since it first came out in alpha, played Toxikk for the duration that it existed with any hype, and prefaced that with some basic play on UT2k4, and I will say the two types of games are hard to compare, and possibly the least divisive part of that is the movement speed - hence my stance that movement speed is somewhat negligible when comparing game differences and skill ceilings. In playing, I don't feel any more or less accurate in one game than another, and in some cases the abundance of splash damage weaponry makes those games feel like it's even easier to hit someone.

All I've got time for right now.

 

You're just reciting the same fuzzy bunny without even addressing my points.  

 

And then you threw the "if you can't see what I'm seeing..." card, inferring that I'm not understanding what you're talking about.   This isn't an issue of me "not seeing what you're talking about."  I've played Counter Strike (roughly 100 hours across all CS titles).  I've played Hawken (arguably, better than you by a considerable degree.  Not trying to throw the epeen card here, but the skill differential is relevant).

 

I see what you're saying.  I've addressed it and responded to it directly.  What this boils down to is that you're unable to meaningfully address my responses.  You have no logical bases for your arguments, and keep dodging topics when you lack answers for the questions being asked.  Despite numerous people claiming that an increase in speed has a considerable impact on the skill requirement of a game, you're sticking to your logic-less notion that speed doesn't impact a game's skill ceiling (despite having admitted that an increase in movement speed makes aiming more difficult in FPS games).  

 

Take a step back and really think about your arguments.  Read your posts back to yourself and look for what I'm talking about.  

Edited by Xacius, 17 December 2015 - 01:18 PM.

[Hyginos]

I don't remember what Xacius and tickle are arguing about anymore, and re-reading the thread did nothing to alleviate that.

 

Might help to back up and make sure we're talking about the same thing when discussing "speed", how "fast" games are, or their "pace".

 

I would argue that CS, while it certainly requires you to have the super awesome reaction times and pro twitches, is substantially slower in terms of game pace when compared to something like Quake or UT purely because of the structure of the game. Being round based and permadeath, the competitive CS mode regularly gives you time to breathe and compose yourself, both in the short break between rounds and in the inevitable lull as both teams stab the air and throw stuff on the way to their respective positions. Following this, actual engagements are short and relatively infrequent as compared to objective modes in some arena/arcade shooters, where someone is being shot at roughly 100% of the time.

 

With this in mind, I would assert that saying CS is "slower" than [insert other game] is not so much a knock against the difficulty of CS (unless its Nept saying it) as it is a note on how the structure determines the pace. Think american football vs soccer, the former having pauses punctuated by bursts of frantic activity, the latter being a more constant level of intensity for the duration of the game. Sorta.

[ticklemyiguana]

You're just reciting the same fuzzy bunny without even addressing my points.

And then you threw the "if you can't see what I'm seeing..." card, inferring that I'm not understanding what you're talking about. This isn't an issue of me "not seeing what you're talking about." I've played Counter Strike (roughly 100 hours across all CS titles). I've played Hawken (arguably, better than you by a considerable degree. Not trying to throw the epeen card here, but the skill differential is relevant).

I see what you're saying. I've addressed it and responded to it directly. What this boils down to is that you're unable to meaningfully address my responses. You have no logical bases for your arguments, and keep dodging topics when you lack answers for the questions being asked. Despite numerous people claiming that an increase in speed has a considerable impact on the skill requirement of a game, you're sticking to your logic-less notion that speed doesn't impact a game's skill ceiling (despite having admitted that an increase in movement speed makes aiming more difficult in FPS games).

Take a step back and really think about your arguments. Read your posts back to yourself and look for what I'm talking about.

Actually what that response boiled down to was "it's ten in the morning and I'm leaving for work." Still there by the way, but I appreciate your speculation.

Edited by ticklemyiguana, 17 December 2015 - 03:05 PM.

[XPloyt]

Twisted Metal - The game I migrated from and transitioned to modern PC gaming via Hawken(because I certainly did some pc gaming back in the late 90's as a kid). There were some mechanics in Hawken that I viewed as similar, and being that movement is an important aspect of the gameplay, I decided a few months in that Hawken would be a great transition from a dying, broken game...to another one XD

 

Mid-combat examples, you say?

 

I have it start at 5:50. I'd say up until 6 7 minutes, there are a few clips showcasing movement and weapon timing with my favorite vehicle MeatWagon and the laser pistol sidearm(arguably the best sidearm in the game), which can only be obtained by beating each mission on the hardest difficulty and completing all of them within a certain timeframe to get gold.

 

https://youtu.be/LT9nUL8s3MY?t=5m50s

 

Just an all-around feel-good montage showcasing flamesaws and explosions using the vehicle aptly named 'Reaper', the glass cannon of TM. It's special is the chainsaw which has a small amount of homing and does 40 damage, but when you're moving around and popping a wheelie, you grind the saw on the ground for about a second and you get the flamesaw, the most deadliest weapon in the game, losing it's homing stats and doing 150 damage.

 

Edited by XPloyt, 17 December 2015 - 05:16 PM.

[ticklemyiguana]

 

quote for the notification.

 

I don't remember what Xacius and tickle are arguing about anymore, and re-reading the thread did nothing to alleviate that.
 
Might help to back up and make sure we're talking about the same thing when discussing "speed", how "fast" games are, or their "pace".
 
I would argue that CS, while it certainly requires you to have the super awesome reaction times and pro twitches, is substantially slower in terms of game pace when compared to something like Quake or UT purely because of the structure of the game. Being round based and permadeath, the competitive CS mode regularly gives you time to breathe and compose yourself, both in the short break between rounds and in the inevitable lull as both teams stab the air and throw stuff on the way to their respective positions. Following this, actual engagements are short and relatively infrequent as compared to objective modes in some arena/arcade shooters, where someone is being shot at roughly 100% of the time.
 
With this in mind, I would assert that saying CS is "slower" than [insert other game] is not so much a knock against the difficulty of CS (unless its Nept saying it) as it is a note on how the structure determines the pace. Think american football vs soccer, the former having pauses punctuated by bursts of frantic activity, the latter being a more constant level of intensity for the duration of the game. Sorta.

Thank you for this. Xacius did kind of jump in and start down a completely different path than I intended when I was initially addressing Nept, for basically what you're saying, but I preferred the dialogue I was having with Xac to, well, the monologue with Nept.

My initial argument was "Nept, you don't know what you're talking about, stop insulting games just because you've put some inhuman amount of hours doing games that are different."
Nept's particular insult was about the movement speed of the game, which first of all is kind of undefined, due to scale and map size being a thing, but I've quite explicitly stated that I believe the movement speed in classic arena shooters like UT and Quake is objectively faster.
Xacius then put forth the argument that having a higher movement speed raises the skill ceiling of the entire game - bar none. (And even further made no delineation between raising the skill ceiling in any game versus "games where you move fast are objectively more difficult games as a whole.")
This, is what I believe to have been debating against under the blanket statement "games are big and complicated things, and absolute statements like that are silly." I initially thought that was evident, but apparently it's not, and so I went on to elucidate how exactly a game like Counter Strike, with slower movement speeds, can objectively require more skill than a game with higher speeds.
Of course, we need to return to the overarching theme here, that games are big and complicated things - the logical step here being that some situations in one game may require more skill of some kind than some situations in the other game, but simultaneously, the same statement can be made of the other game.

In a game like Counter Strike, you are punished mercilessly for being out of position. You can be killed instantly, and if you aren't killed instantly, you will still get shot, slow down, and it will be that much harder to regain position. It is entirely unforgiving in that aspect, and in my mind, I equate that to requiring a certain level of skill to avoid such a scenario consistently.

In UT, there are no movement penalties and you move much faster, thus if you are caught out of position, it is far easier to return to it. I also felt that was pretty obvious, but Xacius' response again, indicated that it was not, citing that the increase in movement speed allowed an enemy to take advantage of you being out of position faster.

So, let's clarify. What is "in position"? Generally speaking, at least in terms of objective based game modes, there is an offensive team, and a defending team. Whether that's a whole team or just a segment of it while the rest of your team does something else is irrelevant.
On offense, in position means being at a particular point at a particular time so that you can complete a particular action. Generally, that action does not involve dying, though it certainly can, and I suppose since it's much easier to die in CS, that could be taken as it being easier to complete an objective where you die. Score 1 for UT.
However, more often than not, being in position offensively involves utilizing utility or covering someone who is using utility, or countering a rotation from the rest of the enemy team, or just being in the least vulnerable position to attack a very specific angle.
On defense, in position means the same generally speaking, except you have no real obligation to move unless things are going wrong.
How exactly then, does increased movement speed make it harder for the attacking team to be in position? If you're over exposed, you can get back to cover much faster. if you're not adequately covering your teammate from the defending players, you can get there faster, and your teammate can retreat faster.
Something was said along the lines of faster speed allowing the defending team to adjust position to take advantage of that, but that's wholly irrelevant in my experience, as both teams move at the same speed, and if the defending team has to adjust, first of all this gives the attacking team time to adjust, and also that would mean the defending team is also out of position - and the result here is the engagement continues and position becomes irrelevant in favor of less position based skills, or both teams have a really easy time getting back into position and the game resumes as normal. All in all, my experience leads me to believe that faster speeds, and certainly the lack of hitstun, actually lowers the skill ceiling in terms of position based skill.

Is that the same argument? Yes, but its been my major argument the whole time, and I feel it's been improperly addressed or completely ignored - I can't rightly tell which.

Also, Xacius, 100 hours across four titles spread out across 16 years is kind of not an adequate supply of knowledge to be arguing what I perceive you to be arguing. Granted, I have a comparable amount spread across my movement based arena shooter titles - Hawken excluded (and also completely irrelevant but I admire your dedication to showing how well you can play video games) - however, I'm not the one making claims that require extraordinary evidence. Stating that a game is unarguably improved in terms of its skill requirements just because you increase the movement speed, is something of an extraordinary claim.

I also feel that you are unable to meaningfully address my responses, and I feel even more so that the burden of evidence falls on you -though given the fact that unlike you or Nept, I actually enjoy all the titles in question and am therefore much less biased, I am more than happy to help you find that evidence, it's just that in actually looking at it, I'm finding evidence supporting the opposite position.

 

Other arguments have included but I'm not sure whether or not they are limited to:

 

• Arena shooters often have lots of explosions and it's easier to hit people with explosions - specifically relevant to Quake/UT vs CS but not wholly relevant to movement speed.

 

• Faster speed means incorporating it into the meta of the game, and like having health orbs de-emphasizes proper utilization of cover, having a faster movement speed can de-emphasize more tactical or subtle aspects of skill in a game.

 

• Probably other things.

 

Finally, I would like to add that liking a particular game is a personal taste, and insulting that game is an insult to that person's tastes, and thus, the person themselves. I'm actually pretty disappointed in the lack of civility in this thread as a whole that is a result of this discussion.

However, I'm better than you all at most things, and so, I forgive you. Chew on that, suckazzz.

Edited by ticklemyiguana, 17 December 2015 - 06:41 PM.

[PoopSlinger]

TLDR: Tickle loves wall-o-text

[ticklemyiguana]

TLDR: Tickle loves wall-o-text

long coherent trains of thought are what happen when you drink lots and lots.

 

 

lol.

 

I have no idea why this works for me in any way shape or form but I'm thrilled to embrace it.

[Nept]

Cut down on the drinking, tickle.

[ticklemyiguana]

Cut down on the drinking, tickle.

Nept, this is the alcohol talking, but I love you and all your silly shenanigans. Just admit that you know next to nothing about CS and this will all go away.

[CoshCaust]

<WORDS>

Stellar post. That's another game that i'd imagine feels similar- one i'd never heard of.

Also nice video!

Edited by CoshCaust, 17 December 2015 - 11:29 PM.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

On gaming speed.

 

What I'm sort of seeing is that tickle appreciates the skill in high speed games, yet more or less feels like it can detract from the more strategic points of the game. Maybe this is due to only having really played slower games. Where those are the only games you've really put as much thought into the strategy of. Anyways I'd like to attempt to dispel the notion that high speeds distract from strategy.

 

Sure you've been a part of ut4 throughout it's developement. (and please don't mention toxikk, it's just a poopier version of UT) But the thing is, strategy and game sense tends to be much more abstract in arena shooters, largely I think, due to structure of the game modes. The modes usually aren't objective based like csgo, which can lead to the assumption it's less structured and less strategic. But generally you extrapolate indirect objectives based off what will help your team win the specific mode, and it does require a deal of strategy and structure to accomplish.

 

Fortress forever is a very fast game. It's instant respawn. The defense can reset pretty quickly, and the offense is constantly flowing. To spitball some random numbers that might not translate particularly well outside of the source engine:

 

The scout in FF walks at 400ups, can bhop up to 620ups (averaging closer to 595), can conc up to 1635ups, down trimp conc up to around 1900ups, and chain conc up to 2200ups and beyond. Compare that to csgos, what, 240 walk speed with a pistol or something? FF certainly has it's speedy moments comparatively. And you might think that detracts from the necessity, or skill, to reset and position well. The defense can reset super fast and the offense runs just as fast, so what does it matter? Yet there are so many FF players who've adjusted well to the speed of the game and still barely scratch the skill floor. It's because they think the game is all about speed vs aim, without applying any game sense. What to do when there's a hole in your defense, how to take advantage of a hole in the enemy defense, how well does your offense coordinate at these high speeds, how well do your defenders time the offense? Timing is crucial, it's not all about being in position, it's also when to fall back or push forward.

 

I think another think you're not really considering is how exactly the speed of a game interacts with the objective of a mode. I feel we've gotten so hung up in speed in relation to death match. You have to realize that speed greatly increases the time relevance of the objective. Sure in a fast game you can get into position fast, but that second you were out of position could be the second it takes for the enemy to capture an objective.

 

 

In a game like Counter Strike, you are punished mercilessly for being out of position. You can be killed instantly, and if you aren't killed instantly, you will still get shot, slow down, and it will be that much harder to regain position. It is entirely unforgiving in that aspect, and in my mind, I equate that to requiring a certain level of skill to avoid such a scenario consistently.

 

Right

 

But it's just the same in an arena shooter. First of all, ignoring objectives and going purely by DM, your death can be insured in an instant even if you don't die instantly. Just because there's a higher TTK that requires mutiple shots doesn't mean you can't be dead or good as in a second. If you're in a poor position you can be punished in ways that result in death or even worse. (IE you running around without enough health to do anything meaningful, yet not dying so that you can reset with full health) You could get tanked with a combo, or bounced away from your escape route with an explosion, or many other scenarios.

 

This is where your "games are big and complicated things" idea hurts you more than helps, I think. CS can be quantified much easier than an arena shooter. Due to the very nature of the game there are, imo, infinitely less variables than an arena shooter can carry. Not to say that CS can't have an infinite amount of variables itself, but an AFPS can easily have infinitely more. It's just in the nature of the games, due to DM mechanics, weapon functionality, movement all those aspects that go into making "games big and complicated things.

 

On defense, in position means the same generally speaking, except you have no real obligation to move unless things are going wrong.
 

False

 

If you just play a spot like that you're a sitting duck waiting to be abused. The very nature of AFPS means that even with a static map, played with the same geometry over and over again, you can find infinite ways to attack it, from even just a single players perspective. That means the defender is forced to mix things up. You have be able to time the offense, and decide from that whether you want to play forward, and when to fall back. You have to make a decision to not play in your same predictable spot while still trying to cover that very specific spot.

 

 

 

• Arena shooters often have lots of explosions and it's easier to hit people with explosions - specifically relevant to Quake/UT vs CS but not wholly relevant to movement speed.

 

You should consider fall off damage. While it is pretty easy to hit splash damage, in many arena shooters splash damage specifically is inconsequential chip damage. To do anything real you need to be hitting directs, or very very close to direct. Hitting directs with a projectile is inarguably more difficult than hitscan imo.

 

 

Faster speed means incorporating it into the meta of the game, and like having health orbs de-emphasizes proper utilization of cover, having a faster movement speed can de-emphasize more tactical or subtle aspects of skill in a game.

 

As I've outlined here, I don't think so.

 

 

Probably other things.

 

Probably, but I'm not sure they'd play out in your favor.

 

 

Finally, I would like to add that liking a particular game is a personal taste, and insulting that game is an insult to that person's tastes, and thus, the person themselves.

 

Rofl, I really don't think so. Though it may be hard to grasp through the wording of the arguments posted here, I don't think anyone is pooping on you specifically for liking CS. Though you're definitely being pooped on for the way you argue your points.

 

I have a lot of respect for the skill involved in CS, and I'd never dis on a particular players skill, just because it's skill at CS. But I don't like CS, it's super boring and lame. That's not objectively an insult to you though.

 

Though I'm pretty sure this isn't what you actually meant, but, the way you worded it, suggests that I absolutely loath anyone who's slightly into country music, because I absolutely loath country music. That's a bad example though, because I do absolutely loath anyone who likes country music, I am specifically pooping on you for your liking of CS, and I'm right about everything.

 

I just think your statement is objectively false born out of faulty logic and an overly PC victimized mentalitiy.

 

 

EDIT: god why did i do this

 

 

WHO IS GOING TO READ THIS, I WOULDN'T READ THIS IF I WEREN'T ME AND I SAW THIS
 

Edited by Massive_Assailant_Stingray, 17 December 2015 - 11:31 PM.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

Also, sorry to Cosh for the derail. I did give you two cents in my last post. If a more "shooter" type of shooter isn't to your liking, (as in you're more into the idea of piloting something, rather than the specific mechanics hawken houses.) maybe a space sim would be more up your alley. Flying is pretty important in a dog fight, which connects with the whole "movement during combat" concept.

Edited by Massive_Assailant_Stingray, 17 December 2015 - 11:36 PM.

[ticklemyiguana]

 

The scout in FF walks at 400ups, can bhop up to 620ups (averaging closer to 595), can conc up to 1635ups, down trimp conc up to around 1900ups, and chain conc up to 2200ups and beyond. Compare that to csgos, what, 240 walk speed with a pistol or something? FF certainly has it's speedy moments comparatively. And you might think that detracts from the necessity, or skill, to reset and position well. The defense can reset super fast and the offense runs just as fast, so what does it matter? Yet there are so many FF players who've adjusted well to the speed of the game and still barely scratch the skill floor. It's because they think the game is all about speed vs aim, without applying any game sense. What to do when there's a hole in your defense, how to take advantage of a hole in the enemy defense, how well does your offense coordinate at these high speeds, how well do your defenders time the offense? Timing is crucial, it's not all about being in position, it's also when to fall back or push forward.

 

First, goddammit MSV.

 

Second, the ability to effectively fall back or push forward is another way of saying what I said - just in a broader strokes. It's exactly what I mean by positioning. Most of the stuff above this line falls on neither side of the argument - just kind of saying "hey some games have fast movement."

 

 

 

This is where your "games are big and complicated things" idea hurts you more than helps, I think. CS can be quantified much easier than an arena shooter. Due to the very nature of the game there are, imo, infinitely less variables than an arena shooter can carry. Not to say that CS can't have an infinite amount of variables itself, but an AFPS can easily have infinitely more. It's just in the nature of the games, due to DM mechanics, weapon functionality, movement all those aspects that go into making "games big and complicated things.

 

MSV, I appreciate the time you put into this, but this is kind of a rofl statement.  This is total conjecture with no line of logical thought. You have 493 hours put into GO. I don't know if you have other accounts or not - but I do doubt you've spent money on GO on multiple accounts. 493 is reasonable. It's not bad. I'm sure given your proficiency in computer games you've done pretty well for yourself in those 493 hours, but I really have my doubts that you've spent sufficient time actually analyzing the game to make these conclusions, and the fact that what I'm seeing here is pure conjecture seems to support that. Most people, even those who play GO consistently, when looking at the game, completely miss entire spectrums of the game. Most people have no idea how the economy works, no idea what weapon does what damage at what range and when it's accurate, have any clue as to things like bomb placement or the like, and it's just, you stating "AFPS has infinitely more variables" strikes me as incredibly naive. Maybe it's not, but thus far I'm seeing a serious lack of evidence here.

 

Also, I feel you've missed something here, as TTK hasn't really been touched on beyond "you can die instantly in CS" - completely ignoring the fact that you can die instantly in other games. It's not about TTK, it's about team coordination and positioning and how long that takes to gain and react to - which is definitively longer in CS and implies (without touching on any of the arguments I've thus far presented and also ignoring the fact that none of my arguments go in this direction at all) a greater need for forethought.

 

 

 

If you just play a spot like that you're a sitting duck waiting to be abused. The very nature of AFPS means that even with a static map, played with the same geometry over and over again, you can find infinite ways to attack it, from even just a single players perspective. That means the defender is forced to mix things up. You have be able to time the offense, and decide from that whether you want to play forward, and when to fall back. You have to make a decision to not play in your same predictable spot while still trying to cover that very specific spot.

 

In all of my time gaming, I have never once seen a solid defense that required you move from place to place without any stimuli to motivate the movement. (Edit, this is actually false - at really long ranges, there's plenty of reason to bounce back in forth in some games where your enemy will have a much harder time engaging you - it's not particularly applicable in CS or most PC games I've played, but saying that I've never seen it is false - and regardless of whether or not it's applicable, those cases neither detract nor add to the discussion at hand) Sure, people bounce back and forth to check, but that's just not a solid defense if you have to do that. You mix things up based on stimuli. Prior to that, you anticipate enemy movement and position yourselves accordingly, with one or two players acting as seekers/failsafes. If that's sincerely the case in arena shooters, where jeopardizing multiple seconds of effective positioning is acceptable on the off chance that someone is going to be where you're checking, then we're talking about absolutely vast logical differences.

 

 

 

You should consider fall off damage. While it is pretty easy to hit splash damage, in many arena shooters splash damage specifically is inconsequential chip damage. To do anything real you need to be hitting directs, or very very close to direct. Hitting directs with a projectile is inarguably more difficult than hitscan imo.

 

Minor argument aimed primarily to irritate than anything else. Immature, but eh. As stated it has nothing to do with movement speed. I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU'RE EVEN RESPONDING TO IT YOU SHOULD KNOW BETTER.

 

 

 

As I've outlined here, I don't think so.

 

Well, like. That's just like. Your opinion. (No but that's kind of all it is, as are all following points.)

 

 

 

You've brought up other topics like TTK that I'm not actually debating whatsoever. As stated in my last post, I'm primarily arguing against "a game that has higher movement speed is objectively harder/has a higher skill ceiling than a game with lower speed in every case possible" which, well, you haven't actually begun to refute, and I'll assume that's because the argument has become super convoluted by this point BUT YOU CLEARLY READ MY LAST POST WHICH STATES THAT EXPLICITLY SO WHAT EVEN ARE YOU DOING.

 

Also, I feel this point of reference might do you a little good in terms of my perspective - I used to street race - and not like "Ha I beat you going 70 in a 45." That'd be an embarrassment. Shy of serious curves or inclement weather, 120 in a 45 was standard. 180 on highways. I'm used to handling speeds beyond what even the select few with good reaction times, vision, and foresight can handle, but when there's traffic (when movement was slower) is when an entirely new dimension of skill came into play - and not just due to the obstacles. There's an entire game involved in outhinking and outmaneuvering an opponent that has time to think (relatively speaking). I'm not "used to slow games". I just find Counter Strike in particular to be more engaging and more skillful at a variety of mental levels than a fair handful of arena shooters.

 

PS

I'm goddamn aware that I almost killed your kid. I'm sorry.

 

PSS

All you impressionable youngsters out there, no. Seriously. I could have died in a heartbeat, as could any number of totally uninvolved people. I was beyond lucky in that literally no one I knew did such a thing, but on the same token, I was involved in a $40,000 accident at 30 miles per hour, where a FedEx van literally backed into me. Completely unexpected fuzzy bunny happens, so if you have the money to race, please do it in a controlled environment and don't be a total fuzzy bunny.

 

PSSS

MSV, I'm serious, I see strictly anecdotal (if that) evidence in your line of thought and completely fail to see what it's building up to - and I don't think what it is building up to addresses the discussion at hand.<3

 

PSSSS

I'm still happy that you've put as much thought as you have into the discussion.

 

PSSSSS

 

Rofl, I really don't think so. Though it may be hard to grasp through the wording of the arguments posted here, I don't think anyone is pooping on you specifically for liking CS. Though you're definitely being pooped on for the way you argue your points.

I think you missed the joke. Also in my head, I'm pooping on all you, and the people not adding things to the discussion just saying "boo CS" are just pooping on themselves, so it's kind of ok.

 

PSSSSSS

 

pew pew fast gotta go fast pew boom jump jump fast going fast fast fast oh no dead going again fast fast pew pew pew pew sploosh pow fast fast fast gonna go fast gotta go fast fast jump air spin spin fast go go pew pew pew.

 

 

 

 

tl;dr, MSV's post doesn't actually respond to the argument at hand with any sort of evidence conceptual or otherwise or discuss it at all but still provides insight if that sort of thing turns you on or something and this is all just responding to it without actually discussing the topic at hand or the topic of the topic.

Edited by ticklemyiguana, 18 December 2015 - 12:44 AM.

[hellc9943]

#removethedelay