As long as you don't need to use mousewheel I'm fine.

i cant stand instant weapon switch because it nullifies A LOT of the in-fight dodging. players who would struggle to do half the damage with delayed switch can kill me by simply switching back and forth from lg to rl

Why don't you do it back at them?

That's the thing, you do, it just feels messy, having fast yet delayed weapon switch gives you time to react to the weapon switch and change up your dodge and nullifies a lot of the easy burst damage you get from instant switching out of LG for example.

Have you played with insta-switch? It just accelerates the choices being made. Needing "time to react" is on you and your skill sets. The delay should come from the fact that the different weapons take different aiming styles. If someone is LGing you and switches to rockets to instantly switch, they're being impractical at aiming rockets.

It pretty much makes your dodging patterns null unless you anticipate a switch, which is what 'I' dislike.

It's not that big of an issue for me in QW because LG is so powerful and pretty much pushing you around anyway, but having rockets suddenly flying out of a close range enemy while you are engaged in a close to mid range LG fight with not enough time to react to the rocket coming out and you yourself not willing to do an anti-rocket dodge because it would kill you while fighting an LGer.

Fast reaction speed is hardly a skill and IMO shouldn't be promoted.

lol

R E F L E X... D:

Yeah, reaction speed in shooters, preposterous I know. We should be playing at timescale .000001.

...................

What training have you gone through and by how many milliseconds did your reaction delay decrease as a result?

Way to miss my point.

How do you demote reaction speed in an fps?

By giving players longer windows during which they can react, giving fairly similar results as with a faster reaction­. Like with delayed weapon switches. Obviously you can't root out every advantage given by faster reactions but I don't think that's a good reason to push the game in the opposite direction.

Ok, so how would you dumb down the lg or rail to diminish the advantage reaction speed gives you with those weapons. In again, a shooter. I've been playing csgo for the last year and I dunno, it seems as if reaction speed is ingrained in this genre. Come to think of it it's probably ingrained in any skill based real time game there is.

I wouldn't "dumb down" anything. I just wouldn't make reaction speed even more important. You're blowing things out of proportion.

i find it gimmicky and disgusting

QuakeLive and Quake 3 have almost no in fight dodging by comparison to CPM in the first place. You're lugging around trucks vs sports cars. Additionally your point is wrong because there are patterns to the weapon choices such as a switch to rail that you can bait, predict and counter.

L00000000000000000000000000000000LL0L0L0L0L0L0L0L0L0L00LL0L00L0L0LL00LŽL00LLL0L0L00L0LL0L0L0L0L

seriously tho ive played against Nzr0 and luko2 (or whatever his nick is) is with vq3 physics, and boy had they problem hitting me

Don't worry, it's not mod specific, my aim is just bad(average).

yeah but i find you dont have to develop good aim and movement in cpm because you can get away with gimmicky shit as lg/rl switching

Did you type this shit by drooling onto the keys?

good movement as in-fight movement

Question still stands. Or do you think you cannot A/D spam in cpm? Instaswitch means you need to read your opponent and react to him even better, because there is no such window in which he can't shoot you because he decided to switch his weapon.

still i have yet to see a game where in-fight movement defeats going in with lg and switching to rocket when you can secure a good hit. you have a lot more experience in the matter, so feel free to show me

This doesn't make sense, how can the dodge(I assume you mean that by in-fight movement) defeat by any other means than by NOT getting hit? You're asking me for a situation where dodging works by not being successful?????????

you'll always get hit, dodging is just something you do to avoid taking 100 dmg/rocket. thats the problem with instant weapon switch, you're able to secure close to 100 dmg rockets by switching from and to lg between hits.

So in your mind lg/rl combos are always successful. Had you picked lg/rg I would be more inclined to agree(even though they don't always work) but the mere fact that rockets are not hitscan should prevent you from even thinking such bullshit. It depends on the range, the map, the players. And if you're using an lg/rl combo in a close enough range to always hit your rocket it means you're bad, cause you should be using rockets only.

no it isnt always successful, just to a degree where the best option in when engaging in a fight

Eh, no. The best option is entirely situational, but if we're talking duel for the most part you're going to be better off initiating with rockets.

oh boy, u seem to have something to teach me, because i think its hard to close distance against an lg with delayed weapon switch

but then again, when did you last play a map where the player out of control can actually engage in a fight over an item

When I am talking about engaging I mean to attack. LG is better to defend with, doh. What difference does the weapon switch make?

Also, to get back to your original point. What difference does you beating me in vq3 make to your argument, which is about dodge patterns. I don't remember playing more than once vs you, unless you have a fake which I've played more than once. Have you even played me in cpm? Have you played lunokhod in cpm? You could just be better in both physics, hats off, I don't see how either way that's an argument for or against instaswitch/aircontrol/whatever difference between the two gameplays.

im also talking about attacking an item. maybe its just me being accustomed to that due to my own preferences, but i cant remember seeing anything different on stream recently with the exception of playing out a positional advantage. i think being able to eliminate much of the risk in wiffing the initial rocket would remove a lot of the in-fight movement, and most likely a lot of the positional aspects too. i dont have a lot of experience with instant weapon switch, much less in duel, but from what i gather is that comboing lg into rocket is almost always the most prominent way to win a fight.

about me beating you was a response to his in initial line saying theres no in-fight dodging involved in vq3 physics compared to cpm. my thinking was that if a almost exclusive ql player can beat one of the better cpm duelers in close encounters that theres probably not a lot of truth to that statement. wasnt meant to be an argument against weapon switch.

oh and u would beat me in every possible way with cpm physics. the only way i take advantage of fast switch is lg to rail or whenever i think someone has gimmicked me enough. but if u'd like im happy to play u on 1v1 ca thundersuck :DDDDDDDDDDDD

It's not the most prominent way to win a fight, it doesn't guarantee you anything, but yes it is one of if not the main go-to combos. Me personally, I prefer to force a close range fight with rockets only. Thing with the lg is you have to more or less stay still to use it and I prefer to be moving around hence I stick to rl/rg. And of course it depends on the map and mode as well. As far as duel is concerned lg is not a tier 1 weapon because of the ammo - you get 50 cells. So even if you want to only use it as a guideline for rox/rg you still have to constantly replenish it. Now if we're talking CA for instance then yeah lg/rl will probably be the most abused combo.

There's no need for 1v1 thunderstruck, you'd beat me even in cpm amphi. The only reason I was towards the top of the pack in cpm was 1) small player base and 2) good old fashioned cooller style item control.

everything u said stems from a cpm pov which doesnt translate fairly to vq3 physics

boy i got bored when ur comments stopped having a sense of hostility to them

stang din hormun then

everything u said stems from a cpm pov which doesnt translate fairly to vq3 physics

Your point being?

that closing distance for lg to be less effective is a lot harder without the increased run acceleration and air control

lol ur a scrub. u dont attack items, u pick them up rofl

I basically said this above. I don't understand the logic!

maybe they had shit configs for quakelive?
i'm pretty sure lunok uses fov 130 or something stupid.
if gaiia(fov under 100) had trouble hitting you, you'd have a good point

QuakeLive and Quake 3 have almost no in fight dodging by comparison to CPM in the first place.

Do you mean the other way around?

No, do you find dodging has more impact in VQ3 / Quakelive?

Yes.

Am I the only one who actually doesn't have an idea what is this thread about? :D

yes.

Why do you keep with these stupid threads?

The community over years and years has given their opinion on cpm gameplay.
People don't like it. Deal with it.

debate my topic or gtfo

Throwing a hissy fit little girl?

I can deal with the physics..
i'd be more inclined to play if there wasn't fast weapon switch,.

you can still have a deep game with instant switch
i dont know why people are so afraid of instant switch



maps are physics dependent
nobody expected people to get so good at cpm movement in the early 00s
cpm needed all new maps in like 05/06
that never happened and most maps became broken
i've always said thats maps were cpms biggest problem.
now that reflex has an awesome editor, it will never be an issue again

that finger has been ...in a white women! probably her butt.

albino?

white men too!

Mmmmmmmm

Why not both, fast weapon switch times in general and "special attacks / combos" that you can be prepare every 15 seconds or so. Preparing the right attack on time would require and reward anticipation of the situation. Maybe that idea is retarded but I think that developers must think a bit out of the box if they want to make an arena fps successful in 2014.

instant because it takes more skillz

"same thing happens with instant switch, duh"

The window for punishing someone who made a mistake is significantly shorter if they require less frame time to reverse the mistake they made.

If you go into an area of the map with the wrong weapon out, and the opponent goes into his area of the map with the right weapon, he's essentially beaten you in a game of rock, paper,scissors and deserves a reward for that, that reward is derived from the frame time it takes for the opponent to dis-engage his WRONG WEAPON and re-engage his CORRECT WEAPON.

By making it nearly instant switch you're making it so a player doesn't have to think as much about where the opponent is at any time or their weapon selection.

It then turns the game into women's tennis, it might be more fun to watch because the impact is a more scrappy game, but under the hood you know the best woman would lose to the best man.

When players know they can get fucked from having a rail out when they should have a shaft, think harder about the consequences which in turn makes them sharper players.

you're always thinking about where your opponent is in cpma if you're playing seriously.

i agree that the first weapon choice doesn't matter as much, but good players still usually punish that mistake and you always have to be ready to counter a quickswitch(it's your fault if you fall for that shit).


thanks for giving your two cents! i enjoyed reading your post

edit1:
"When players know they can get fucked from having a rail out when they should have a shaft, think harder about the consequences which in turn makes them sharper players."

like i said in the first post, i think it's a bit of an overrated skill.
it's not hard to hit lg into rl in quakelive or know when you shouldn't have rail out.
people have been great at that since the early 00s

edit2: i'm done debating this. nzr0 can takeover ;p

"you're always thinking about where your opponent is in cpma if you're playing seriously."

Of course but that's just like saying even tic tac toe has strategy compared to chess,I bet on average a quakelive pro could pin point the position of his opponent blind at any time/frame in the map and predict what weapon he has at that time, more accurately than a cpma player could. That sort of thinking leads to a more highly tuned player.

With the more ambient sound system
hashed out timer.
Lower form of punishment for having the wrong weapon out.
Weird trick jumps that allow large parts of the maps to be circumvented, not to mention fast running speed, combined with rocket jumps, you essentially end up with a game which is simply more general because its harder to keep track of things, to the point where a lot of time it has that clan arena feeling to it.

I bet on average a quakelive pro could pin point the position of his opponent blind at any time/frame in the map and predict what weapon he has at that time, more accurately than a cpma player could

This has nothing to do with the gameplay differences(or instaswitch specifically), it's the fact that the maps are small enough to do so. Oh and I can predict what weapon he has the majority of the time right now - RL.

You cannot physically change a weapon instantly, you still are at a disadvantage if you have the wrong weapon out as evident by the fact that in cpm as well as vq3/vql people will have RL out and ready the majority of the time. The first shot is as important with or without instaswitch, but without it the game punishes you for using combos.

You cannot physically change a weapon instantly, you still are at a disadvantage

so the guy without finger has the same level of disability as a guy whos got no leg? level of reasoning i should have expected from cpmer.

yes, weapon switch is delayed in cpm aswell, but time of it is small enough to be skipped at all, especially considering its also existant with every single decision you make ingame.

The first shot is as important with or without instaswitch, but without it the game punishes you for using combos.

yeah, because its so damn important the game will be based only on pure mechanical skill. lets not punish people for getting suprised, only execution matters.

At this point I don't know whether it should be embarrassing to me or you that I have to ask but: Do you honestly believe getting surprised leaves you unpunished in cpm?

Sure, having the wrong weapon out in CPM will get you into trouble, but it will get you into even more trouble in VQ3.

When people or players face greater consequence for a mistake they think harder about not making them to begin with.

I'de rather get caught out in promode with the wrong weapon or position than in VQ3, you seem to think people are saying you don't have the same problems, you do, its just the consequences are not as heavy.

I just think the freedom cpm gives the players allows for a broader set of possibilities. And because of that I think there will be both situations where you do get punished less but also situations where you'd be punished more.

are you able to operate only on extreme, definitive values? theres no gray in your world? the amount of punishment is not relevant because bam, insta switch. or rather reaction time of player switch.


ps. i just love when you go full fanboi. its adorable.

I think instaswitch rides on the same horse with instagibs. Look at Warsow/Xonotic servers - mostly mods (not modes) circling around such "robotic settings". Game is boring as fuck, repetitive and with playerbase circling around 12 ppl (20 in holiday season). I guess for some pure muscle reflexes are enough to have fun in video games.

this question is so dumb even nzro wont try to defend insta switch.

Repeating myself, but delay falls under the umbrella of stupid limitations which have the effect of making the game less fun. It's like wanking with a slow modem, I want the picture now, not in 15 secs. Weapon combo mechanics do make the game a little more erratic, but also more epic.

It's WAY more fun for casuals, too. I've always been a casual player and I would take air control+instant switch over vq3 any damn time.

imho. people against instant switch/aircontrol are people who only played q3a, they just wanna have what they know good, of course they cant state that and try invent dozens of reasons why this feature is more tactical/strategic (or why its just better) ...
me being a player from qtest, having played all the quakes, and other fps variants, can only tell you one thing, q3a was and still is newbified version of quake to gather mainstream audience ... of course you dont want to accept that, because you invested so much time in that game ... but its the sad truth, learn to accept it ... learn to evolve .. adapt to the new grounds of abilities or go extinct ... and finally understand that instantswitch and aircontrol is what god meant quake to be

"...learn, evolve..."

"... the old ways are the best..."

Q3 is actually natural evolution which you must learn to accept if you want to have thousands of players instead of tens.

Look at board games for example, most kids start off with something "fun", fast and twitchy, like Hungry Hippos or something, and when they get older, wiser and develop attention span, they move on to less twitchy but more strategical games like Monopoly or even Chess.

Most people from QW went to CS when this happened to them, but if you prefer Deathmatch, then Q3 style game play has hit the sweet spot for the majority.

hit the sweet spot, uhuh - free game from a billion dollar company that maxed at 1k before steam

qltdm = DOA in america(scene never existed)
qlv1 = no new challengers were created in america because the game was too +back(boring)

copying quake3/ql would be the biggest mistake reflex could make


qw would be a much smarter choice to use as influence.
people play it all over the world in ALL game modes because it's so much fun. no esports scene and billion dollar company backing needed

Q3 is actually natural evolution which you must learn to accept

they get older, wiser and develop attention span, they move on to less twitchy

Most people from QW went to CS

clueless :}

Would it be overwhelming to formulate an actual thought and an argument to support it, or do you just wish really really hard that it is as you say?

once upon a time pink ponies came and took away the crown jewels named q1, q2 and q3. they told a tale about magic battlefields and our call of duty. then we all started to play counterstrike.

/this has as much logic as your 'argument'.

you are so clueless i have little idea where to begin. competitive fps players went where the competition was (most of the time: where most players were), eg. qw -> q3, later q2/q3/ut -> q4. the top competitive players went where the money was, eg. qw -> q2 -> q3 then painkiller, q4 and shootmania. at times the competitive players followed the top players (q4), sometimes they did not (shootmania, painkiller).

the reasons for all of this are self-evident if you understand the motivations behind being a competitive player. most players did not stray far from where they came from though, but again... if you want to compete you compete at something you are somewhat good at.

historically there wasn't much crossover in terms of numbers between quake, cs and ut. this later changed somewhat with cs:source and ut2kx and then q4, but was still relatively minor.

most people did not go from qw to cs, where did you get that impression from? it sounds pretty absurd to someone who was around at that period of time.

q3 is also not a 'natural' evolution from earlier quake games, it was an attempt to make money by a company who owned the rights to the series (maybe this is easier to understand when you remember the raven debacle with q4) and some gameplay changes were made to fit that goal, yet i fail to see the 'natural evolution' here.

/edit: i know a lot of quake players in their 30s and some in their 40s, no one ever said anything about going to less twitchy games because of their age or their newly acquired wisdom and (what?) attention span... ever, including myself ;)

the only reason i could think of regarding this and 'twitchy' games in general is simply lack of time once you get older. quake demands quite an amount of daily/weekly practice to excel at, on contrast something like dota or lol might be easier to play casually.

Obviously it's not as black and white as one could conclude from from a post not longer than couple of sentences, so I will rephrase; most players from QW ended up playing CS.

Back in the day there were also maybe dozen players going after money while mostly everyone, even the very skilled guys, played only for bragging rights. What was also cool was the fact that all 3 quake games created their own communities, so that quake was still going strong after Q2 was published and so on. One of the biggest factors why QW lost it's thrive was the fact that the game became way faster and way twitchier in the late 90's, early 2000. Most of the older playerbase, who were not 12-13 years old when the game got released got sick of it and moved on. Some went and stayed at Q3/RA3 but many more ended up in CS (there were even top QW clans that made the transition as a team, like clan Z)

Q3 was not a money making attempt, actually even less than the earlier versions. Q3 was the child of Carmack, a guy who had also played all the previous version and thought they were cool as hell, but once he got bit older he too thought thay they were way too twitchy, and came up with Q3 style gameplay (he's vision was even slower, but in the end they did hit the sweet spot). Natural evolution, my friend.

Sure there are always some diehards in everything, but my point stands for the people making reflex or any dm game; if you want tens of players go twitchy with high air control and fast weapon switch, no foot steps and whatnot, but if you want potentially thousands of players that will keep playing for the next 10+ years you need to pick more Q3 type of game play.

Thanks for the proper answer.

Shut up and learn movement, you scrub

Carmack wanted a slowed down game because that's what he always enjoyed(hint: he was always a scrub)
He also wanted to slow down fragging, so he made map control would be harder to obtain.
Q3/q4/ql all failed and had major support
Time to try something else.

Cpm never had major support, so you can't compare it to ql(I already know that's what you're going to do)

A lot of qwtf players switched to cs but tf was hardly quake.
calling them quakers would almost be like calling urban terror players "Quakers".
Regular quake players did switch, but the rate wasn't as high as tfers.
you also have to remember that early cs movement felt like qw

lots of qwtdmers quit cs after they started to slow it down.
when did clan z stop playing cs, 2001?

Reflex will be fast paced and have air control
That's pretty much a guarantee
Don't like it, stick to ql. You have the perfect game, remember!
Natural evolution, lol

Wow, a whole thread on weapon switch times and not a single mention of Q2. I guess that's my obligatory cue :)

In general, faster weapon switch times have been correlated with balancing weapon damage towards a normalized value. Jamerio already pointed out that a faster switch means less time is needed to correct having the wrong weapon out, thus it means less preparation is required in setting up a fight.

In games with slower weapon switches, you tend to see each weapon get a bit more of a damage buff. 100 damage rail is OP with instaswitch, but it's balanced with a slower switch, etc. If you're able to switch at any given point, each individual weapon needs to be balanced towards the middle. When you're more committed to the weapon you have out, the opposing weapon needs to be strong enough to punish you for being unprepared. So it's still rock-paper-scissors, just with larger extremes.

I don't think either method is objectively better than the other, but I do appreciate the differences in gameplay that come out of having slower switch times. On one hand you have a lot of mid-fight switching, combos, etc, and that's cool. On the other, you have more ducking out of fights, more trapping, and more hit-and-run tactics. Personal taste becomes the biggest factor at that point.

faster = better

why

rocket to nade combos, rocket to rail...while enemy still projected in the air

i like being able to run up to someone while firing a rocket, switch to lg for a bit then finish with a rail

so its not better, you just like it more.

Its more tactical if you are doing insta switch... so you switch in time.. common sense.

One random situation i remember: im in a fight with this guy in cpm, both of us using LG, I was 20 hp and he switched to rail to finish me off, he missed the shot and I killed him because of his reload delay when I was two LG hits away from death.

Instaswitch might be a double-edged sword because if you spam it, you'll find yourself in awkward situations.