Slightly tweaked hoony mode.

is there any demo of a hoonymode match between "pros"?

wtf, hooneymode?
who the fuck actually likes tennis?

cmon, you can't cut the pace of a game after a frag because it loses all it's "hunting appeal" reducing it just to aim luck. i mean how will it be? the one with the stronger spawn gets the initial armors and rushes on leaving the other player 2 possible decissions - to run or to hope few lucky shots get in. the "better-spawned-player" would still know the approximate times of the second armors and would always be a stronger contender. sometimes it takes 2 attacks to regain control. but oh no, you are given it.

in my opinion fixed first spawns and delayed first armors could be an option. during the match the spawns could be fixed also, fuck the system. fo example if i die at mega i have 3 possible FIXED places to spawn in and thus if something doesn't work it can be changed.

or

something like hooneymode but with 5 min rounds. a match on dm6 would be played as a three rounds. but still i think that cutting the pace doesn't sound as a good idea.

You wouldn't play HM on maps like DM6 that's for sure, and you both get to choose a spawn.

Strat is like kryptonite to cpm players:>

It's fine as long as its 15 minutes, if something is flawed then its flawed for both players, which actually makes it even in the long run and potentially more exciting in the short because of the swings.

I love your idea with the spawn delay of the armor. Say, on ztn, the red armor spawns like what? 8 seconds later then usual? So, both can fight about the armor.

[x] tl 15

hoony mode sucks, it removes the aspect of map control

How so?

for example, usually you try to not kill your opponent in a place that can get him a good spawn (near an item that is up)

How does that remove map control from HM?

You still need to control items and positions/space on the map.

ok...
it removes an aspect of map control

One that causes more problems than benefits.

rofl, this is more of an argument for hooneymode than against it...

xou voted: 10 minutes, 15 minutes, Hoony Mode

All 3 at the same time bitches

hm in vq3 would be terribad. might as well call it turtlemode. not that it already isnt.

Weaponstay would solve that.

erm no?

erm yes?

Crouch Slide with new maps would solve that.

How can crouch sliding fix anything? Ever?

have you not seen how dogs drag their bums across the floor? look into their eyes and tell me they aren't enjoying every second of it

I think that would be closer to butt racing.

hoony mode sounds like a very bad idea

Go HM, its fighting for map control thats the fun part of 1on1. Spawn raping is bad in so many ways.

hooneymode is a bad idea.

after about a month of playing it, i bet the same scenario will happen on each map over and over again.

1 spawn point will establish itself as the superior one and pretty fast, players will find out which one that is, get the early advantage and then attack immediately.

A 60/40 or 70/30 % chance of winning a fight is more than enough, considering spawn kills and the following loss of level control are no longer a problem for the less likely case that you lose the fight.

why would the player that picks the spawn first (thus establishing himself a small early-game advantage) even try to let the game go longer than the first pickup times and risk losing the early advantage?

he has absolutely nothing to lose, not level control, no addional kills whatsoever.

Also hoonymode leaves no room to establish an advantage that lasts for more than a minute

it's a fun mode as long as people don't get all competetive at it.

At least you don't allow games to be settled by random events and encourage players to not fight.

Apart from dm6 and possibly t7 I can't think of a map that would allow a massive first spawn advantage.

What do you think about the additions to HM that I suggested here:

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1806569#pid1806569

Something else:

The problem with hooney mode isn't the spawn system as such but the time it takes to play a whole game. We all know that sometimes a single frag can take minutes at a time, and that's only partly due to maps/gamemode. I remember the lan game between rat and pl1 (or was it pod?) in cpm that went without a frag for almost 5 minutes, and on phrantic of all maps. It might average out over time, but you will could always get two defensive players taking ages for every single frag. This isn't as much of a problem in for fun games, but in competition it might very well be.

Imposing a general timelimit could screw with the spawn system and defeat the purpose of hooney mode. More sensible would be a round limit say of 2 minutes. That would mean that 10 spawns could be played leading to a maximum time of 20 minutes, which seems reasonable and would be lower in most cases anyway. Even if you play a tennis style system where on player need 2 points advantage the time factor could be managable.

The question would be what to do when the round ends. Declaring it a draw could very well lead to defensive games (first to twitch loses). You could give the point to the player who didn't have the spawn initiative, but that would create an even bigger reason for the returning player (for lack of a better term) to run away.

Possible might be a soft cap. After let's say 1 1/2 minutes health and armor stop respawning and health starts to degrade past 100.

Another possibilty would be to award the point to the player who's health and armor yield more hitpoints once the time runs out. To discourage running away you could award 2 or 3 points for a frag and 1 point for winning through time.

Actually, if you read through the other posts I made in that thread, I proposed using Doom 2 style rules to solve that, since high level Doom is played with fraglimit instead of timelimit. Weaponstay + less ammo should make the game more confrontational.

Ah, interesting. Even with that I could still see very defensive play, but it would make it a lot harder i guess. I'd really like to see high level players trying to exploit hooney mode. All you'd need to test it out right now would be a custom layout with reduced ammo then, or are you talking about weapon capacity as well?

I haven't thought it through enough to go into any specifics, but I'd like to think that you could do it entirely through map design.

+back would have to be mostly running, since ammo is too precious to spam. You'd see a lot more GL/PG use, since they would be less valuable ammo in a direct fight. This system wouldn't work on most old maps, though, since ammo placement is usually in low-risk areas. Ammo should be placed in very high risk areas, and in favored placement for someone who is in control of the map. Some maps could have NO ammo for a certain weapon, forcing you to be very specific about your attacks.

I would rather see people play HM without any changes and then as the time goes little changes are made to balance the game even further. vq3 was broken from the start, but you couldnt notice due to people using ball mice and not playing +back .

Judging by the poll, it's never going to happen anyway. =/

humans always reject changes at first, you just need some one to force it up their asses (arqon fixing physics in cpma) and eventually they will like it.

Yeah, people say it doesn't sound fun and normal duel is "fun" because of the flow etc. but to be honest I feel it's more of a "learnt" fun since it's always been that way.

When it was first invented it didn't matter, nobody had experienced anything different but it's quite clear that these days most people don't like how that works and don't find it fun.

Lets say you played "Tennis rules":
- Best of 3 sets (maps)
- First to 4 games with a two game advantage (4-2, 5-3, 6-4 and so on)
- 1 frag wins 1 game

The problems are indefinite sets and games.

For individual games you could have a time limit (2 seems a bit short in a way, but it could be tested) where damage given is used to judge the winner of the game (rewards confrontation).

The tie breaker for sets is much more difficult.

Wouldnt it be first to 6 games? Anyway, to prevent games from lasting forever, armor starts decaying after 1 minute and a half, and items stop spawning after 3 minutes.

Tennis is 6 yeah, but I figured if we're worried about time I think 4 would be "ok", I expect close games would be back and forth anyway.

What vedic said, basically. I agree that pure hooney mode the way it is now would get old really fast, but a system that forces both players to chose each availlable spawn at some point in the game could change that.

he has absolutely nothing to lose, not level control, no addional kills whatsoever.

On the contrary. The player who has the better spawn of any given pair is in the same situation that a tennis player is in when serving: He's expected to win, which makes losing the frag all the more important. Think of it as a break.

What you say really sounds logical, but i have to disaggree vehemently, when i think about hoonymode more.

i don't think you should compare duel and tennis.

if the game resets after a frag, like in tennis, then the whole principal changes.

i for one would like to be at a disadvantage when killed, or lose level control.

and on the other side i want my frags to count more than just points on the scoreboard.

if you take away the consequences a frag has, they are just points.

sure in the end its about points.

but slasher wouldn't be able to say "that was a crucial frag", because all frags would be the same, and there wouldnt be any come-backs like most people want and love.

the game won't suddenly turn, because one player pulled some genius move.

the best you'll get is "omg he chose that spawn, the pistol-round-of-quake, so that the next two spawns he'll be better off the bat"...

Well yes, but what you're saying is that it would be a different game and that's the whole point. Besides You would still have crucial frags (winning a bad spawn vs a good one for example).

/edit

For the record, I don't think hooney mode should replace standard duel in ql or cpm. I'm thinking more about the next iteration of deathmatch games, pmx in particular

classic duel shouldnt be removed, if not due to popular demand (aka 10 pages worth of whine on ESR), simply because HM might be a bit too "serious" and not everyone will like it. If arqon doesnt want classic duel in PMX due to legacy purposes, than it might be revamped, for instance splitting the game in 2 halves and a tie-breaker.

oh that would be cool, instead of sudden death OT, switch to hooneymode and the player wins who is 2 frags ahead :D

Crucial frags would be every time you "break" the guys spawn.

The player "on spawn" will be heavily expected to take control and score the frag so every time the player "off spawn" takes the frag then it's crucial.

The player who just lost "on spawn" will be under intense pressure to take the next frag or he could potentially be one frag from losing the set.

please add a 12 minute option.

ix suggested it at some point and i think its a good choice.

10 minutes is too short imo, but its definately better than 15 minutes, because i remember getting bored alot, when watchign 15 minute games.

please add a 13 minute option.

someone suggested it at some point and i think its a good choice.

12 minutes is too short imo, but its definately better than 14 minutes, because i remember getting bored alot, when watchign 14 minute games.

it doesn't work like that.

10min and Hoony mode ftw

10min games are more fun to watch, but they are definitely far less tactical than 15min games, which makes the switch a negative one in my opinion. There is never any down time any more in duels, which many may look at as a good thing but for me it really takes away from the experience. Since there is never really time to just go and have a little breather and slow the game down, there is never a time to just play it slow and transcend the situation. If you do it in a 10min match you would be sacrificing far to much for it to be worth it on any level.

Also I believe that the 10min format does not allow for a decent come back . If your opponent assumes total control of the map ( Like in ztn ya,ya,ra,mh, sometimes it doesnt even take that much ) he is very likely to finish the game within that span of control. Since if that happens there isnt really that much time for you to go incognito and just wear him down.. Or let the opponent wear him self down. You always have to be in contention for everything since there is so "little" time. The opponent is very likely to get a couple of frags in this situation which can kill of a game as with such little time left he does not really need to fight for control again as he may have just done enough to ride out the time. While in a 15min match you would still have a chance to do the same to him. ( Total ctrl rarely happens more often than once a match if that often, and ye ye I know dont let your opponent assume total ctrl and all that crap ! )

qlr vs spartie ztn, lots of other examples out there too I bet. There's plenty of 15min matches that play identical to 10min games.

The timelimit debate really misses the point.

Deathmatch > Pacman

Examples of what ? :o

Comebacks on ztn.

In fact that game is even more an example since cooller spent the first half of the game giving Spartie a substantial lead (one that back in 2002 you could defend easily without map control for hours let alone 15mins).

Well it isnt impossible to get a comeback, I just meant that it would be extremely difficult to come back from a situation like this if your opponent plays his cards out right. But I cant really say I know of what qlr vs spartie ztn game you speak of :)

I seem to recall that qlr vs avek though at DH was a bit in this form, where qlr lost ctrl and got a couple of frags down early in the game. Then he just had to keep on pressing since there would be no time for him to just wear avek down. Cant seem to find a vod/demo of it, if anyone knows a place to watch that match up it would be greatly appreciated. :o

I hate the arguments people give for TL15 because it always comes down to negative strategy, where the player makes the decision to wait for his opponent to lose control rather than actively win control, or how DM6 works (Which is a terrible map to base any rules off of for any mode).

Well I cant really argue with your opinion, but I dont think it is a negative strategy. For me duel isnt about forcing your self on your opponent, it is about neutralizing him. Which can be done in many ways and the 10min TL has limited them quite a bit.

You can't just PRESUME that someone would come back if they had 5 minutes more.

In a one-sided game of dm6, where i.e. spartie destroys cooller, it's also possible that the extra 5 minutes would just extend the frag diference. Also, regarding the ztn where spartie won by 1, keep in mind that spartie KNOWS that the timelimit is 10. And he can play the clock, go defensive and let cooller take everything, cause he knows he's most likely gonna get away with it. If the timelimit was 15, he probably wouldn't do it, at least not before 12 or 13 minute mark.

We've seen a lot of 10 minute matches ending with someone running away with a frag, but also we've seen a lot of 15 minute matches with the same ending.

The problem of ql wasn't the timelimit, but the fact that the old netcode pretty much leveled the aim skill, or at least reduced the gap between solid aimers and great aimers, so the one in control would have much more chance to win a fight for every item cause he'd be more stacked, with similar % acc. And when he's not stupid to throw it all away, people whine about the timelimit.

With the old netcode, Cooller outshafted noctis in 90% of cases @ dubai, after only 200 games in total, which was crazy. And you saw it, just as i did. I'm pretty sure that he'd win like 30% of fights vs noctis with the new netcode.

i was never a good lg aimer?:F

pretty solid, but his shaft was like 25-30 at the time.

Edit for fanboys: i mean the lightning gun.

against good players i very rarely had anything higher than 30 either.

btw from what i know cooller is usually praccing on a laptop at home

dunno about the laptop, but what i'm saying were the situations @ t9 where you kill him, and you're left with like 100/100. he spawns by the lg, takes it, rushes you instantly, and after the fight he's dead, and you're left with 15hp. happened many times.

He took toxic on in a shaft fight in Q4 where it was 100/50 vs 150/100 and he came out with 15hp and Toxic 5hp or something (but toxic got the next armour and some health).

That was on LAN at the peak of Toxics Q4 skill and the bottom of coollers.

didn't follow q4 at all, but the fact that you remember a certain shaft fight and the result from those times is pretty scary imho. :D

The health points etc. are probably slightly off but the story is fairly accurate with him being totally out healthed and armoured and going into a pure shaft on shaft battle.

I mostly remember it because people kept going on about how great Toxic's shaft was and how cooller wasn't a good shaft aimer really. He basically came out of every shaft fight having "won" in that game, he was rubbish at everything else though.

It was also one of the only Q4 events I followed post-WSVG Dreamhack (Quakecon I believe).

Actually, I missed most of that tournament :)

But like I've said thousands of times before QLR Shaft > * regardless of netcode on LAN (Obviously online can have huge differences).

i'm really convinced it has more to do with him being hard to hit, rather than his lg aim.

anyway, we'll see with the new netcode how things work.

So everyone else just stands still during the fights?

Come on he still has to hit his shots on dodging opponents (Who aren't exactly terrible) while making himself hard to hit, which is possibly the hardest thing to do in a shaft fight (ergo he has excellent aim).

sure he does, but his lg was never really 40%. maybe 30% tops, because of it. he was always strafe first, aim second.

and he surely has the best strafe in the game.

I ignore aim statistics in duel games (bar rail) because so much spam goes on.

Take ztn as a great example, players will often fire the LG as they go around a corner chasing an opponent, before they are in range, to put off opponents from attacking or to catch players through teleporters.

Toxic, for example, only hit high stats with the LG when he was bad at duel and losing lots of games. His only focus was on hitting shots and his stats reflected that.

Toxic, for example, only hit high stats with the LG when he was bad at duel and losing lots of games. His only focus was on hitting shots and his stats reflected that.

I suppose that can be explained by his tdm influence?

Doesn't matter why really :P

There actually is not that many examples, because it usually involves huge risk taking and hitting 3 rails in a row and whatnot. With 15 there are ways to do it while taking fewer risks, thus the odds for it to work are better.

But talking about these specific games with cooller and spartie, so they made it a very even nailbiter in to the 10 minute mark, wouldn't you have wanted to see 5 more mins of such a great game?
We know from experience that the players are capable of maintaining high level play for 5 more mins, so why not make such a good show a bit longer. How hard is it to do what the russians have done in Asus cups for years; if one takes too big lead and the other guy does not think he can make a comeback they just vote next map and move on.

Lets make it 20minutes!

Honestly, 20 mins could be even better, but it has been used only in team games so far and we already know that 15 minutes is sufficient for duel, so it would be smartest and easiest to go with that.

Now if you are trying to be witty and suggest that by the same logic, that is used to argue 15 mins, you could always argue a higher number, well, things do not work like that in real life. Just because something is too low now, does not mean that you can keep increasing it endlessly and always get better results.

As a spectator i vote for 10 minute matches. I fall asleep at 9-11minutes if the match is 15 minutes long and there is very little action.

15 minutes is overrated. its becoming fashionable anyway to ragequit after few minutes already.

its becoming fashionable anyway to ragequit after few minutes already.

maybe thats because its already over after a few minutes...

For emo kids maybe :D

and dm6 haters






oh and when a certain pole thinks a certain swede is all luck

your dm6 related quits have a valid statement to back em up and cant be compared with other rage quits.

i still believe 15minutes would not make a big of a difference. i think the point is to somehow prevent big frag differences rather then extending playtime. maybe with powerups spawning like quad, random timed first spawn. maybe.

to somehow prevent big frag differences rather then extending playtime.

They should just add an official "i give up and accept the loss" function or smth so you don't have to continue getting raped for another 3 minutes when its really already over. One which gives you a normal loss statistic instead of a quit.

thats a reasonable point.

yeah, the other player should be able to choose whether or not he wants to accept that though.

Needs 12 minutes.

that's what SHE said.

i laughed, but ain't gonna + you!

raged like Jamerio.

why would i be?

I DON'T KNOW.

You'd think by now, you'd get when you're trolled or getting an ironic/funny comment like this. :<

Stop being an idiot and insult me or smth.

i ain't gonna insult you. i'm a good man. fuck you.

15min would only work if there was a functioning "Concede" button..

Hoonymode sounds like fun, no harm in trying it out at least.

Random spawn system.

I don't mind being spawn raped and I love spawn raping others :P

12-13 min tl.

Are you gonna totally fuck this game up? Those ideas... everyone here wants to be the most wise i see. I suggest to leave duel in the form how its currently is. I usually support well checked things so I choose the 15 tl option above. There were so many great games with this tl, especially with more agressive styles of playing i think.
I dont understand guys saying "15 tl is boring, i am falling a sleep at 12 min.", "10 tl is more fun to watch!" - like i always say, game should be in 100% comfortable for gamers NOT for spectators, gamers should always have a priority. And come on guys show us your balls standing 5 minutes (eternity!?!!?!?!) longer, be a man.

tl 15 for great comebacks :)

15 minutes!! what a bug? Alchemist03 voted: 10 minutes... sux hah

You can change your vote!

What I don't like about 10 minutes is that there is no 'midgame'. I know Quake doesn't quite work like chess/dota/rts games in that respect, but a quake game still has a few distinct phases:

1.) start - players go for initial items and one gains control (0-2 mins)
2.) earlygame- the player who took control at start will generally stay on top for 5 minutes. Items are very easy to time during this phase, you can basically run a map blindfolded
3.) midgame - by now down player should have been able to hit enough shots or stolen enough items to put control back in the balance, giving down player a chance to score some frags and even the game, or the original up player a further lead. Item times are more randomly distributed, and control shifts back and forth the most during this phase
4.) endgame - if scores are close, this is the tense part of the game, if scores are not close, one player will have to take risks during the last 3-5 mins to try and score a lucky frag and convert it

VQ3 - style gameplay makes it too easy for one player to control the map for extended periods of time. One player will get control at the start, and by the time the other player is able to make a dent there usually isn't enough time to capitalise.

2.) earlygame- the player who took control at start will generally stay on top for 5 minutes. Items are very easy to time during this phase, you can basically run a map blindfolded

There's your problem.

About Hoony mode, for me personally I think it would break the fluidity of the game. I believe that the flowing gameplay is not only one of the important characteristics of quake, but also a big part of the beauty in it. Little bit like a figure skating, when they are practising some jump over and over, always going to the starting position after the jump. It is still impressive and you can really see who is the best jumper without any interference, but only when those jumps and moves are tied together with a single flowing performance they truly become an art.

Hoony mode would completely change the game, turning it more into something more akin to CS.

If it was so good, why was it never used in Q3?

Why wasn't CQ3?

VQ3ers are idiots.

Because the whole CPMA was handled the way it was. VQ3 crowd had options, unlike cpm players, thus they didn't need to put up with arqons tinkering. When CQ3 was given to a more community oriented coder, it was already too late; QL had been announced.

That's a long way of saying that VQ3ers are idiots.

But it has, in all clan arena type mods and modes, which probably were (and are? I don't know ql's stats) more popular than all other modes combined.

I've never played Hoony mode, but I read as much as I could about this, and I understand it.

I think back in Q3, it would of make sense. In VQ3 we had shitty starting spawns on a lot of maps. Take DM6 for example, a common initial spawn I saw was one person at LG (they would cleanly grab mega and RA) and someone who spawned a YA shotgun (They could only get YA).

In that gamemode, yes, hoony mode sounds somewhat practical. But now in QL we have very balanced initial spawns. Other than the bad initial spawn on ZTN (you get GL, they get shotgun, which in all honesty sucks but it's managable), it's fine in QL.

But now in QL we have very balanced initial spawns.

i hope you are fucking kidding

t7 and dm13 are filled with retarded initial spawn situations beyond anything we ever had back in q3...

T7 I find to balanced, DM13 now that I think about it does have some bad ones. Like lower YA + RL spawn.

But really T7? Every game I've played has always been one person either getting RA + YA, or Mega + YA. I don't think I've ever seen a game where both players haven't started like that (Unless a player deliberately skips something to do something surprising)

i once had 3 games in a row on t7 where both players spawned on the same side of the map and one of them got the kill and then the rest of the items...

happens quite a lot

What area did they spawn? What were the spawns?

SG and plasma for example
or above rockets (mh room) and LG

Interesting, I've honestly never seen that before.

But, I'll agree with DM13. There's one where I've seen one spawn at the stairs from YA to middle (YA by the plasma) and the other by the entrance to the middle room where RL is from LG. So both try to go for RL, but only one is going to make it, and have a +50. I hate that spawn.

But I find the other maps alright. Better than VQ3, I think we all can agree about that (I think people forget how bad DM6 and ZTN spawns were in VQ3)

ztn spawns weren't any worse in vq3 than in ql and dm6 should be ignored no matter what the discussion is about anyway.

Really? So you sitting at GL and looking at the wall behind you getting spawns over and over was okay? I remember playing and watching ZTN games, you could get 3 spawn kills EASY, but in QL it's a LOT more difficult to get 3.

first of all, we were talking about initial spawns, no?

and second: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8u4CAf04Ils ?

Sorry, I thought you were talking about non-initial spawns. My apologies.

Also, yeah, I forgot about that situation. The most that has ever happened to me was twice, and after that they usually get a far enough spawn to where you can't get the conversion.

Overall I think QL spawns are underrated. Initial spawns are good for DM6, ZTN (80% of the time), T7 (95% of the time), T4, and T9.

The initial spawn at dm6 where one spawns at the shells and one at the yellow armor jump pad is hilarious though.

what if the discussion is "What map should be removed"?

then the discussion would be about what map should be removed next to dm6, because dm6 is automatically the first one to leave, no discussion needed there :P

I don't think so.

I can would expect no less than 50 posts with "dm6" from you on such a poll.

since the poll wouldn't even include dm6 to begin with since its the first one to be removed i'd rather post t7 for 50 times :p

do you really believe that?

:PPPPP :DDDDDDDD :EEEE :FFF :)))))))) :FFFFFF


....

By G...

Stopped reading.

<3

I wouldn't have made sense. If spawns are shit, then we need fixed spawns, not another rule-set.

srsly

just make ql turn based - like fallout 1 (and 2(and 3))

I appreciate what hoony is trying to do with hm(and like the idea) but too many people in this thread are grabbing onto it as a solution to crap spawns on maps.

Fixing spawns is a better solution than "fixing" the game mode.

That is all, no hate on hm because it is fun.

How would you fix the spawns/spawn system then?

So you think the solution to crap spawn system and crap map spawns is changing the gametype rather than fixing spawns?

Rightio then.

The spawn system can't be fixed, it'll always be a case of "it's the best we can manage" and you'll always end up with unfair, random situations.

As for "fixing spawns", it is so ridiculously difficult that making any map that's good enough to play is a massive task.

It's nice to see you offering all solutions though.

a start to fixing spawns would be taking out 70% of them in duel, i don't know why a duel map needs to have 20+ spawns in ql ...

that would take out the bad spawns, but spawnraping would be easy as fuck

not really

why isnt there a 'fix the game' option?

seriously, the issue with 10 mins is that the game forces one of the players to +back several minutes at a time.

-> fix the armour system

in other words, play more promode.

i do massively prefer cpm to vq3 but this is about fixing vq3 :P

its things like you having to sneak around the map to get a YA, and then it gets taken off you with one rail that make it rather boring...

perhaps it should be ga=50, ya=100 ra=200

that would also probably have benefits in TDM and CTF aswell.

It's not about VQ3.

Timelimit & Spawn Systems are still a massive problem with tiered armours. In fact your suggestion aims to fix different things altogether.

im not talking about tiered armours, but increasing the amount of armor available, more quickly and easily for the out of control player.

that way its not so often one player with 200/200 vs one player struggling to get up to 100/100. Players can do it ofc, but they have to run at first sight of their enemy ->boring to play and boring to spec.

Still doesn't address anything with the spawn system or time limit (What this poll is about).

I would think it does adress some of the time limit discussion, since it takes less time to max out your armor (just steal one red for example), so the "5 mins earlygame" you were talking about in another post can quite possibly be significantly reduced.

What about the issue of defensive play and running down the clock?

How much armour is required?

On ztn there is RA/YA/YA/MH/shards and we still get similar situations as on dm6, t4, t6, t7, t9 and dm13.

If you put too much armour and health on a map you just end up with players backing out of fights quickly and grabbing health/armour again and no true combat or frags ever occurring since it's easier to keep tanked up and to try and weaken the opponent from distance than risk losing a 50-50 fight.

I never said that it is a perfect solution or that no other problems can arise.

But I do not agree that is doesn't adress the time-limit problem. To find out whether it would work (or at least help) I think a test would work much better than the theoretical approach.

(Not including Shards)
t4 has 100armour + 2min MH
ztn has 200armour + 35sec MH
dm6 has 150armour + 35sec MH
t7 has 200armour + 35sec MH
t9 has 150armour + 35sec MH
dm13 has 200armour + 35sec MH
t6 has 150armour + 2min MH (iirc)

None of these maps play drastically different bar dm6 (where this concept of 5minutes of unbreakable control comes from) in the different time limits.

It doesn't really address the issue of time limit at all:
- Takes less time to get health and armour for both players.
- Players will always be a minimum of 100/100 meaning map control is pointless.
- Why bother attacking once you're in the lead? Just run away and stay tanked with your lead intact since nobody could possibly control all the health/armour on the map or do enough damage to frag you before you run away.

- Takes less time to get health and armour for both players.

true, but you are still ingoring one factor. The player in control picks up one red and already has 200 armor. he can't improve on that any more.
While the other player to get equal just needs one red or two yellows, which for example on ztn should be doable, inside say 90 seconds if you want to avoid your opponent.
On the other hand getting four yellows in a row in the same time without taking damage seems much harder.


so, I maintain, the approach does adress the time-limit problem. whether it solves it is another matter.


as for the running away and staying tanked (even though it doesn't touch my point at all) that is were mega comes in.

Irrelevant, if you're running away, you only need to get back to 100+armour, the guy with MH can't deny health bubbles.

If maps start having 250/300/350 of non-shard armour it will get ridiculous. There's no point in risking taking damage for an armour when you can just go to a different area and have one yourself before the opponent can challenge (Why would he even bother?).

It becomes "impossible" to control all the armour, so both players are always strong and reluctant to get up close and fight since one frag could mean the game is over (Or it could result in the opposite I suppose where both just charge constantly).

This is why CPM has the tiered armours. It allows for necessary combat over items, makes the RA important (Instead of pac-manning YAs), the YAs are still controllable by the RA player but leaves opportunities for the down player to get enough armour to fight on a regular and quick basis.

it would indeed be a problem on the maps with hordes of YA's, but those maps are like that cos of the silly armour system in the first place...

anyway, u cant really fix the game at this stage, its just too far gone :P

Indeed.

I think the tl 10 has the biggest infuence on defensive play. People scare they will not catch up their opponents in time so they dont want to risk.

So to prevent games from being too slow you make armors better for the under player having a chance at fighting? But then the player in control still can +back without getting killed, so how about increasing ground accel/friction and maybe even adding air-control? But taking risks is still too dangerous, so how about reducing weapon switch time or maybe even completely removing it? But you still have an extra 100 health spawning twice a minute which can make getting out of fights too easy, so how about making MH spawn a little while after it wears off? Wait this could be brilliant, how come no one thought of this before?

:)

SOUNDS LIKE CANCER

Absolutely. This poll is totally missing the point :)

Yeah, remove red armor completely and replace it with another yellow armor. Also, when a player has >100 armor, reduce it by 2 points per sec.

that would make things a bit too much like pacman.

but pacmac was a great game ?

Nah, Pac-Man Championship Edition though, now that's a different story.

How about Hoony mode modified, sort of like...erm..yea...CA.

10 rounds or so, maybe make just one powerup spawn through the rounds

You could also try using a round time limit and using sort of a fighting game rule, player with less health loses after the minute/whatever time you set. And show who has less. Would force him to attack if he knows he will lose anyways.

I think round based quake would be better suited for viewing, not so sure about playing, wouldn't personally mind it.

Sorry but it sounds like a frankenduel :))

10 minutes is fine, spawnraping-getting spawnraped is part of the game live with it ffs after all these years. /b/

15mins is much nicer, longer games = more time for comeback.

the solution is obvious. play more tdm/ctf.

You should use communism mode. In today's world, it has to be more than a Hammer & Sickle, it must be a Rifle & Loudspeaker.

*digging out*

- 15 minutes timelimit
- map attempt 1 ends with a score (player A 3:1 player B)
- then both players switch into hoony mode
- they exchange their initial spawnpoint, which they had on the first attempt on the map
- or the better player gets a bad spawnpoint, the lower ranked player gets a better spawnpoint
- map attempt 2 ends with a score (player A 0:1 player B)
- total frag score of both maps count (player A 3:2 player B)
- this makes 1:0 games less attractive than 24:2 games

But you only play one map?

tl 15 and bo3/bo5 with 7 map pool, and ill be in heaven.