why can't cpm have movement this good?

ugghhhh? you gotta be fucking kidding me.

You go get the torches from the basement and start the car while i round up the guys

you can't lynch someone and ride a car, you need a good american TRUCK for that man!

why cant vq3 have movement this good?


ME feels quite good but its not a patch on cpm.. shame on you nine =/

wtf traitor :D

tbh; as a cpm mapper who had his pride and joy work destroyed by the removal of the ups cap, and then struggled endlessly to build a meaningful CTF experience whilst remaining compromised by what essentially equates to unlimited player speed, the idea of a movement system that provides both a definite and measurable ups cap whilst still giving the player the tools to remain unpredictable and creative can be nothing but appealing.

I only hope that pmx fixes the mistakes we made during the development cycle of cpm and learns from DICE's shining example. As good as cpm may be, when it comes to CTF, imo we made some huge mistakes in favour of keeping a uniform physics set.

cpmctf2's problems are very little to do with the removal of the UPS cap. The issues are:
Absurdly open mid leading to a pure rail fest.
Difficulty of moving from high to low in the middle area, made worse by the use of lifts rather than pads that will cut off any chaser who doesn't have a rocket launcher.
Poor low level to mid level connectivity.
Lines of sight from mid into the enemy base and to the flag.
The division between base and mid is tiny, CTF maps need a larger pre-base section (this is not just a counter to excess speed, the route choice and communication depth comes from this).

If you cut out the middle and redid the map with those bases it could be something very good. PMX does attempt to address some of CTF's issues although frankly I disagree that it's as simple as raw speed. Talk to me on IRC when you sort your internets and I'll give you a movement physics build and will discuss what I think the issues are (I'm certainly not pretending there aren't any, I just think it's more complicated than raw speed). We're still in a position to try specific ideas from ME if you can explain them.

Disagree on your analysis as you're forgetting to factor in the boost in teamplay that a slower game brings - things like running escort, attacking as a unit, setting up pups rather than swooping them... everything we lost from cpm when we returned to the one man army le warp model. As weak as vq3 may be in many respects, the CTF is infinitely better than cpm's for this very reason - and the grapple method for providing creativity and unpredictability whilst still maintaining a measurable speed and accessibility gain in CCTF is exactly why it suppassed both, and exactly why ME's movement might also be able to.

Anyway, this is hardly the place and I've made these points before to no one's benefit. Did you actually try playing ME yourself? You should, and not the pissy single player experience. Do some serious time trialing for a couple of days and maybe you'll save me the time required to explain. I've always felt development benefits most from taking in other people's thoughts on a similar subject, and ME is as close to a commerical release of our gameplay style as there's been so far...

I don't have access to ME to try it, explain some of the movement techniques and maybe we can give the ideas a try. Your ideas before were not disappearing into thin air but you didn't seem to absorb the response that what you were suggesting was a whole new gameplay only for CTF, CPM's aim was modes for a single gameplay. Now that we're experimenting with the physics build where everything is cvarred up it's much easier to try ideas.

The demo is minimal in size, and the iso/legitimate Steam leech is hardly a big deal on current internet connections.

Take the time to absorb another developers game experience for a change; it can only benefit you, even if it does nothing but reinforce the conviction that your own product method is the right path for your gameplay development to take.

I can sit and describe why it works, but that would be a waste of my time. Words can be dismissed much more easily that experience can, and within it's own context, ME is very nearly perfect - a slight amount of bunny style ups gain would compliment it perfectly if it carried a managable cap or maintainablw time frame.

The game has a lot of open interactivity between the environment, with minimal effort on the user side.

Jumping right by specific map elements (little crates, etc) would be like a ramp jump in CPM, but doesn't require much in the way of initial speed.

If you hit crouch just before you land, you can do a roll (not always the easiest to time with the pace of the game) which will avoid fall damage up to a certain height and also allows you to continue movement without slowing you down.

Jumping near a wall with enough speed will get you to wall run, to which you can angle off and jump in a direction you like, or you can use the 180 key to flip your camera so you can push off.

It's actually an extremely enjoyable movement system that isn't too difficult, but feels fun and could be easily expanded upon.

Context driven, two button system. 'Up action' and 'Down action' with simple cominations, resulting in;

Balance (slow)
Ledge walk (slow)
Squeeze (slow)

Jump (maintains momentum)
Double Jump (gains momentum)
Crouch Jump (maintains momentum)
Wall run (maintains momentum)
Wall run Jump with directional exit (gains momentum)
Pop Vault (loses momentum depending on entry speed)
Tictac (maintains momentum)
Muscle up followed by Dyno (slow)
Lache (maintains momentum)

Vault (gains momentum)

Slide (loses momentum)

Breakroll (maintains momentum)

Turning circle whilst maintaining momentum is limited and results in general broad turns (see Vroom! trophy videos) so movement with the assistance of terrain results in better speed, allowing the player his creativity and unpredictability, but whilst still giving the mapper enough control to direct flow and gameplay.

Movement whilst using projectile weapons is limited, and scaled to weapon power and weight.

Melee attacks are context driven depending on angle of attack and entrance move, and scale in damage and knockback depending on the move they're been combo'ed with.

etc etc. Time for work, will add more later if I can be arsed.

Cheers. =)

You haven't played any ctf the last few years right?
Slowing down the movement further is probably the worst thing that could happen to cpmctf. It is already an aimfest, more than you could possibly imagine. A slower gameplay would rely more on aim and less about movement.

I think what's wrong with cpmctf is that it's to hard to attack. You're up against 2 stacked(at most times) defs with in most cases just some shards and hopefully 100hp. And how hard is that to take out when you're defending?

I dunno what's the solution is. If there is any.
Maybe put the most usefull weapons as a defender further out of base (rg / lg mainly)?
Add more armors to the maps?
Add some kind of armor regen?

I play CTF on at least a weekly basis, on a range of maps, not just cp9 and cp14. There is life for cpm outside of that pickup channel funnily enough.

You'll find the reason most people struggle to attack in cpmctf is because most players rarely attack as a unit, where as most defensive players however do. A slower game makes for deeper tactics, and therefore more team communication. Attacks may occur less often, but are more effective because players take time to gather and prepare rather than screaming across the map in 5 seconds flat to attempt another meaningless steal, relying on the premise that their fellow attackers are doing anything different, when in reality, they generally aren't.

The sick part of cpmctf comes whe you find an attacking unit that does practice proper teamplay, and intstantly you end up with with endless deflag chain caps, simply because they can clear the map and return to attack faster than the defense can re-prep.

Too many players struggle to look past the 'it's cool to run fast' aspect of the bunny hopping feature. The best move arQ ever made in coding was to fully fix the rounding errors in circle strafing in the pre 1.0 era. Unfortunately that change was reversed due to player whine and the immediate change of feel. In terms of CTF, the strongest build we've had since was the one featuring the ups cap, and sadly, that was reversed too.

Consistant physics in a game of cpm's style simply can't work with so many varied gametypes to account for, which is why NTF works where CTF doesn't - it changes the physics set of each class accordingly.

"I play CTF on at least a weekly basis, on a range of maps, not just cp9 and cp14. There is life for cpm outside of that pickup channel funnily enough."

Where exactly? If it's with friends, what friends?

Anyway, CTF is and always will be shit. NTF is absolutely miles better.

The same collection of people I was playing Qw CTF with a decade ago...

Yes, I am aware of that most players struggle in attack because it requires communications. Attacking requires more skills than defending. Gathering weapons / armor, avoiding enemy attackers AND defenders, wait for partner to attack, grab flag, read the opponents and escape where there's a big chance of success.

A def needs to have a decent aim, item timing and a basic understanding of the game. The def KNOWS that the enemy is coming to the flag where he's waiting.

What I'm trying to say is that the basics of attacking is harder than defending (imo). With a slower gameplay attacking still would require more skills than defending.

Sadly I wasn't around back in the days where the UPS cap existed, so I haven´t been able to try it.

I think why NTF works is because of the players (2 defs / 3 atts), that you spawn with weapons and armor regen. What's left is really just to wait for your partners and attack.

uhm, isn't the UPS cap still in, and there wasn't one back then?

There might be flag drag still, I can't remember, but the normal movement should be uncapped.
There's a ups cap for ntf though, but I bet you knew that :)

too hard to attack? when the average clan game has 10+caps?

lfeck knows what you think of attacking in vq3 then, when 0-0 is commonplace

I think you're forgetting that there is a HUGE difference between pickup cpmctf and clanwar cpmctf. In pickups you are correct that a "one man army" can easily defrag his way to victory, especially on rather raceway tracks like cpmctf2.

But the speed is more or less nullified in clangames and it becomes all about aim. That was the case in 2006-7 when the osp'ers from noobsanon used all-mid tactics, and probably even more so today with all the swedecunt aimers.

Anyways: cpmctf2 topic on pm.org forums:
http://www.promode.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=...it=cpmctf2
If I had to pinpoint the map's most important flaws it would be the easy door-swoop (combined with defs forced miles from flag to restock) and the mid.

The UPS cap being removed really isn't a problem as much as the maps available in ctf. 1v1/tdm have always had more maps to choose from.
BaseQ3 has +10 tdm maps, 7 1v1 maps and 4 ctf maps (all but q3ctf2 are crap)
OSP has 11 tdm maps and 2 ctf maps (both crap)
CPMA has 29 1v1/tdm maps and 5 ctf maps (only cpmctf2 is playable)

Which leaves both vq3 and cpm ctf'ers playing big open raceway threewave maps made for threewave ctf.

I don't know why ctf maps are so few. It might be that it's relatively easier to make a 1v1/tdm map. If you fuck up any location on a ctf map and make it overpowered, the entire map is ruined. There are plenty of examples in the threewave map pak of maps with potential, that ultimately fail because of a few overpowered positions that create stalemates. Cpmctf3 mid is also a prime example of a stalemate.

I'm not forgetting those differences at all, nor am I forgetting the impact of high damage hitscan in those situations either.

And my recommendation to ix stands valid to yourself; if you're confused as to why there are so few CTF mappers, go try it yourself.

You'll understand pretty damn quickly when you try playtesting it with someone like minky or aggnog running; it takes one corner cut or one poorly placed item and the map is broken almost instantly due to the movement. Then, after hours of testing and refining you get to watch that work become completely invalid a few mod revisions later...

It's a lot of stress and hassle for a gametype that is essentially's fluid and therefore too quick to invalid your work. ctf3 took 9 months to finish and changed almost completely as the design brief for NTF shifted over and over. It's now basically irrelevant as a result.

But enough whine; go try it and you'll understand. If nothing more, than we might get a vaguely useful beta to work from.

I'm sorry that you misunderstood my post as "go make more ctf maps you lazy mappers!" which was not what I intended. I'm trying to understand WHY ctf isn't high on mappers' list.

I understand that cpmctf is more vulnerable to gameplay changes than 1v1/tdm and that it might scare potential map makers. And you're certainly correct that NTF has changed drastically, ruining any testing done on cpmctf3 earlier.

But even though vq3ctf hasn't changed there are still very few vq3ctf maps out there. So the fear of gameplay-change can't be the only reason mappers prioritize ctf low.

I think one of the reasons is that the margin of error is much smaller on a ctf map. Make one superfast route or one superstrong defensive position and it will be abused over and over.

Mapping ctf is also more complex than 1v1/tdm since you have to take speed into account. In 1v1/tdm it really doesn't matter if one route to RA is 2sec faster than another route. But in ctf speed has to be taken into consideration constantly. The time a defender has from a weapon/armor spawn to flag. The time of a certain route vs the risk of that route vs the reward and so on. q3wcp18 is a perfect example of routes that don't add up.

On some level I guess you also have to double your testing in ctf. You have to think of the map both from the attacker and defenders' pov. And the changes you make to make a ctf map easier/harder to defend/attack have much more effect than making RA easier/harder to defend on a 1v1/tdm map.

Player spawns are also much more important in ctf than tdm. In tdm you can basically just scatter spawnpoints on the map (grossly simplified ofc). But in ctf you can't just put player spawns wherever. Good examples of player spawns gone wrong are q3wcp1 (hello spawning at ENEMY pu), q3w3 (hello spawning high in ENEMY base), q3wcp5 (hello 323344 spawns low, but only 1 spawn high).

Obviously it's also much more difficult to playtest a ctf map than a 1v1 map since you need 8/10 for ctf and only 2 players for 1v1.

It's arguably much easier to locate flaws in 1v1/tdm maps than in ctf maps. Oldschool q3tourney4 with RA+RG high and only jumppads, is a prime example of an obvious flaw.

At the moment I can't think of other differences between ctf mapping and 1v1/tdm mapping, but please write more if you can ;)

All in all, it seems there's a lot more work to a ctf map than 1v1/tdm and that it might be the main reason for the lack of ctf maps?

You're misreading me; my post wasn't a kick back to the suggestion that I've been lazy or that similar members of the community have been either, it's an honest request:

Go and try mapping for cpmctf, spend some time playing with the level editor, try and form your own production method that effectively balances the many facets of the game mechanic, plan a testing process, try processing the feedback and finding a constructive use for it...

The task is insurmountably big once you've tried it, and suddenly you realise why a solid and stationary design base is neccessary for the gametype to have a future when a single choice by a coder or a gameplay dev can break months of work. This is why you don't see cpmctf maps. It's too much like hard work for a hobby, and that's before you even consider the asthetic additions that get you jobs in the industry (style over content, gfx = gameplay) and that the great unwashed more often than not base their initial judgements on...

I already acknowledged that gameplay-changes isn't optimal for mappers and that that might be a reason why we don't see any cpmctf maps.
But vq3ctf doesn't change and we still don't see any vq3ctf maps. So there must be other reasons.

My theory is that a ctf map is a huge workload and it's simply easier to make a 1v1/tdm map.

Take cpmctf2's base, with concepts like q3wcp22 (plus one more low to high route in the pre-base area) or q3wcp1 (both strong maps with slightly poor bases) and you're well on the way to a good CTF map design. It's not harder than a good duel or TDM map design, it's just that most CTF map designs are AWFUL. Giant RA3-style box maps wouldn't work for any mode.

Then why aren't you producing them yourself?

I think if you try it adam, you'll find it a lot less simple than you suggest.

I'm not saying it's easy, I know perfectly well how much effort mapping takes but I think we know enough for a direction. I will be if PMX ever gets anywhere. =)

I think the evolution of the game has inhibited a lot of map makers from creating playable maps because of the development of CPM but also the natural development of the players and strategies/tactics as well. I think what CPM stands at today represents the essential vision for the final game (in terms of movement), correct?

What CTF maps work (in your opinion) and why?

We should be looking at these elements before designing maps. I personally believe (while my map-making is limited to making a few crappy 1v1 maps) that on CTF maps, you should make defense of flag reasonably easy for 1v1 encounters (defender has positioning advantage and available weapons for a short 1-frag-per-15-seconds battle), and flag carrier exit routes congregate in mid-atrium that create interesting (some easy, some difficult) angles for defenders (see wcp14/22), and also flag carrier has to make very distinct choices in exit routes (upper exit should ALWAYS be most difficult, mid should be medium and low should be easy -- this simply because of the benefits they afford the FC on his way out).

Cpmctf2 is a sponge of a map. It's too porous. On cpmctf2 there are 6 routes in attacking/exiting flag. To compare, wcp22 has three and wcp14 has four

Attached Image: 69210-cpmctfroutes1.jpg (505KB)

Attached Image: 69211-cpmctf2routes2.jpg (422KB)

Attached Image: 69212-wcp14routes.jpg (553KB)

Attached Image: 69213-wcp22routes.jpg (731KB)

ctf2 was designed with six possibile attack routes; three per defending player with cover available from the other three, presuming the defense players want to avoid being blindside. One player can cover all six presuming he has eyes in his arse and doesn't mind being sniped from midfield, promoting defensive sensibility over race track three-man attacking (which is something we suffered from heaviily at the point of development - no one wanted to defend, and all we played as cp9)

After grabbing the flag, an fc is then given the choice of three exits, not six; exits 5 and 6 in your diagram are the same route and immediately funnel to the same point. Exits 1 and 2 do the same. In the case of each option, one split, for example 2, has more cover but takes longer or comes with a penalty such as a RJ than the other, e.g. route 1. However, regardless of the split they take, the player is funneled to a single exit point immediately outside the base where they can be effectively intercepted.

Most of the base exits then split higher or lower to keep gameplay fluid, rather than reduce midfield to a one tier racetrack. The problems came as the ups cap dropped; under ups capped movement with heavy flags there was enough time for a defender to use any of the above exits and cut the fc off given he'd know exactly where the split would spit the fc out. There would also be long enough for an attacker to reposition to ambush. As the ups cap dropped, the time frames involved in these transistions dropped to the point where they were too small for most players make use of them, and the difference between exit route and midfield height transistion blurred.

A good example of this are the lifts in mid; if you're got that far back in those days (and it took some work given how fast the chasing defender was in comparison to the running fc) then you were due the safety provided by the lift, restricting the chasing defender. Again, dropping the cap broke that too.

The one thing I wanted avoid with cpmctf2 was building a map like cp1 where the game mechanic only worked because everything was closed and covered, basically restricting the movement to the point where players could only use the same options as a vq3 player, albeit a little faster. The openess and creative options of ctf2 only became a problem when players got faster and could cover more angles in the same time frame; there are only four players on that map from each team at any one time; they can't cover everywhere, and the ups cap made sure of that, especially given how out of the way the rail placement is.

This is why the big threewave race tracks are played so often now; losing the cap removed the ability to play effectively on small, compact maps, unless they seriously retard the movement. cp22 is a perfect example of this - it's no different to w2 in design; if anything it gives even *less* movement options than w2, but it works because it takes the fc long enough to get home for people to catch up and funnels him through one single, exposed midfield option.

This is where a static design brief is essential; ctf is too fluid, and has too many moving parts to be approached while the game mechanic itself is non-static.

I should also point out the change in map design that resulted once we dropped the ups cap; if you look at ctf1&2 (developed at the same time) and ctf3&4 (devleoped together post-ups cap drop) then the second pair of maps are huge in comparison, but both feature movement retarding flag placement that funnels the attacker into one point of extremely awkward transistion.

This occured for one basic reason; to stretch a map to a size where fc travel times are high enough for defenders to catch up or for ambushes to be laid without retarding the players movement to the point where the mod ethic becomes meaningless, the resulting bsp needs to be absolutely huge. Not only does this lead to issues such as dead space, huge vis levels and rendering performance issues, but it also gives us the most serious issue of all; the bigger the map, the higher the speeds achieved by an attacking player, and the more disruptive the swoops become. So again, even if the map is open and creativity friendly, the base area needs to look like a lego disaster just to the slow the attacker/fc down.

Which again defeats the point of the basic mod design.

The problem for CTF is the limitless speed gain, not the maps, unless you want to play one very boring map design recycled over and over. And for perfect evidence that variying the physics per gamemode is the most sensible solution, rather than asking the mappers to do the impossible, all you need to do is look at NTF, which works and works because we did the one thing we weren't prepared to do for CTF development.

I rest my case?

It's interesting to see what you had designed cpmctf2 to be -- much more of a creative use of the movement for CTF. But the speed issue isn't as bad as you make it out to be. A players agility is absolutely killed by higher speeds. wcp22 allows for high speeds but it has long pathways that allow defenders to take shots on escaping EFCs. wcp14 does not really share this layout, but then again you don't really see lots of high speed caps on wcp14 simply because it's too easy to disrupt EFC if they are taking the most direct path (mid).

This is why we all need to switch to Doom 2.

Ever try Doom 3 RoE CTF?

Fucking awesome.

No, I most specifically did not mean Doom 3.

That was what I asked - did you actually try RoE CTF?

I wouldn't even consider it.

Yeah, Doom 3 got that a lot. And resultingly a lot of people missed out on a very positive experience, especially given threewave's involvement in the expansion pack's design.

We played around three or four months of regular clan games before the scene died, including the in-clan pracs to match. We also played in two cups. Some of the games were played vs US teams on high ping as the scene was so small, some in the EU on sensible latencies. Everything was generally positive; the armour tick down made megahealth a destination item again and forced defense to rotate and communicate whilst farming, frenzy made foor a nice combination of quad and haste and attacking co-ordination was a must given the map designs, (dan's reworking of Spider Crossings for it was awesome...)

Dunno, more than anything it was refreshing playing a game without a rail. Shame so many people applied vq3 singlemindedness when presented with something different, rather than bothering to try a new experience. Either way, I'm glad we gave it the time we did at CGA.

Doom 2 CTF > Doom 3 anything

Qw CTF > *.* but that isn't a reason not to try everything that's come since is it.

I like to think I'm pretty open minded when it comes to game design; I learnt a long time ago (first with tribes, and later with mmo) that different didn't neccessarily mean wrong.

id software make/made great games, but that doesn't exclude their external devleopment team or other software houses from doing it cleaner and better. After all, if id were flawless, we wouldn't need osp/promode would we?

I wouldn't play Doom 3 for the sheer audacity of the game attempting to label itself as a successor to doom 2.

I take it by the same token you don't play Quake 2 or Quake 3 because Quake was the original?

You sir, are a blind fool :p Or too young or single minded to understand. I used to be a lot like that; I played little more than id releases for nearly 6 years, outside of FFVII and Wipeout 2097. I rarely owned anything other than a PC and it took a long time to convince myself to try Tribes.

I know own a 360, a ps3, a ps2, two psps, a DS and my PCs. I have favourites on each platform, and rotate from one device to the next on a regular basis. I've tried games from genres I honestly thought I'd hate, only to find them much more entertaining and deep than I'd previously expected, and am glad to have taken the time to step away from the beaten path.

The World Ends with You (Subarashiki KonoSekai) is a perfect example. I'd never expected to find an RPG on the DS worth playing that wasn't developed on a previous platform first; yet here you have a game that carries both a completely freeform character development system, (similar to materia but more influential on the characters end attributes and the world response) and some of the fastest combat gameplay I've ever experienced; you play two character simultaneously in combat, one controlled on the top screen with a combination of button presses, with bonuses for getting them right rather than plain button mashing, whilst controlling the lower character on the toucscreen with the stylus. The bottom toon you manipulate with a varied selection of stylus strokes and presses, even using the microphone to activate some of the AoE attacks, whilst balancing the focus between each character depending on which happens to have a rotating damage bonus at the time. You even get FF's equivalent of limit break style attacks based on how good your sync'ing is between characters.

I've rarely experienced anything as intense or demanding; a good cpm CTF match just baout comes close. And yet there it is; on a kiddie console o_0

Open your mind a bit; you'll find a wealth of games out there you can't begin to imagine and would kick yourself for missing if only you knew how good they were.

I take it by the same token you don't play Quake 2 or Quake 3 because Quake was the original?

Quake 2 was pretty fun. Quake 3 was for a while. Doom 3 is a complete failure compared to Doom 2.

It's like Chrono Cross compared to Chrono Trigger - it might have been moderately tolerable if it wasn't busy ruining the name of the original.

You can't 'ruin' a game's name; a sequel or re-iteration in no way reflects on the original; it's a seperate game, with a seperate development cycle featuring potentially different individuals with a different interpretation of the design brief. If nothing more, budget and release time changes alone can massively alter a release or sequel's play style and game mechanic.

Say Square were to release a FFVII remake for ps3 as everyone keeps suggesting they might... If it made changes and played differently, would that make the original release a lesser game? Of course not. But by the same token, just because it were different, would it make it worse by default?

Brand snobbery has no place in computer games. Take a game on face value and consider each release an island in its own right, then you'll find yourself less resistant to looking elsewhere and more able to enjoy what you find when you get there.

Doom 3 brought a level of interaction to the ip that Doom 2 was completely unable to achieve. In terms of per pixel collision detection, true black light scaling and sync'ed netcode it broke barriers no other game had approached effectively, and made for a refreshing and interactive game experience.

The CTF was fluid, fast and team focused. Its a shame you were too singleminded to actually try it.

Say Square were to release a FFVII remake for ps3 as everyone keeps suggesting they might... If it made changes and played differently, would that make the original release a lesser game? Of course not. But by the same token, just because it were different, would it make it worse by default?

+

Doom 3 brought a level of interaction to the ip that Doom 2 was completely unable to achieve. In terms of per pixel collision detection, true black light scaling and sync'ed netcode it broke barriers no other game had approached effectively, and made for a refreshing and interactive game experience.

So you're saying that the game is good because it's different, not because it's good. I should give it a chance, despite hating the game in every way I possibly can.

Brand snobbery has no place in computer games. Take a game on face value and consider each release an island in its own right, then you'll find yourself less resistant to looking elsewhere and more able to enjoy what you find when you get there.

You're right, I should play every single NFS game since they might not be as bad as the first ones I played. In fact, I should play every game ever, as I should dismiss all the experience I have gotten through my life in exchange for the possibility that I might not hate some game as much as I thought I would. Your mentality is what fuels such creators of movies like "Son Of The Mask" and "Dumb and Dumberer" .

Doom 3 is a terrible game. The multiplayer is one of the worst things id has managed to squeeze out, only surpassed in failure by the engine itself.

So you're saying that the game is good because it's different, not because it's good. I should give it a chance, despite hating the game in every way I possibly can.

I didn't say that at all; I said that by being different a game doesn't automatically have to be worse. How can you judge RoE when you didn't bother to play it? We live and breath in a world of absolutely piracy - it doesn't cost you anything more than time to try a new game these days,and it does no one any harm presuming you're decent enough to buy it after if you actually like it.

Where's your problem?

So, I should abandon the complete hatred I had for both the Doom 3 engine and the gameplay in Doom 3, in hopes to play a game that isn't played by anyone, isn't nearly as interesting as the game I ALREADY play, and would only serve to waste my money.... Please, don't let that stop you from claiming that you know my taste in games or my knowledge OF the game.

You recommend piracy of the game, which is rather childish. It's to be expected from a Doom 3 supporter, though!

So trying a game for free that you outright wouldn't pay for on gut only to find you really like it and then end up buying it after all is a bad thing? You don't work for the RIAA do you?

Keep trying to justify it to yourself.

I don't need to; I know I've spent more money on games that I would have done otherwise as a result of mininova; helped a lot by Steam, as I don't even need to leave the building.

I once bought a car I didn't like, so I should steal another one to make sure I like it.

"I once bought a car I didn't like and it left me with doubts about the manufacturer. When it came to buying a new car, I went to the show room and test drove a new model. I liked it so I bought it."

You have a very cynical mindset don't you.

Games come with demos - you don't have to steal them.

Games come with demos released two months after the retail release disappeared into the trade-in only market. Publishers don't make money by releasing demos, they make money by marketing and hype. Releasing a demo at the point anyone might want it just reduces curiosity based purchases.

Your point is?

When they release it does not change the fact that they do. Your justification remains childish.

Not at all; if the hype is the only reason you're going to consider buying the game, and the demo isn't out at the time so you can't check if the hype is due, then you have to rely on the marketing of the game to make a judgement.

We already know just about every major reviewer is in the pocket of headline publishers, so few of the reviews you'll read are honest and appropriate, esecially in the case of major brand ips, such as NFS as you mentioned before. The publishers manipulate the press to make sure their hype remains valid.

So having gone through the cycle of buying on hype and being let down by the product a few times, surely common sense then dictates that rather than waste $50 a pop, you're better off leeching an iso if you have doubts.

Resultingly, publishers make less money off shit releases and are forced to make better games.

In the mean time, you can try games you really wouldn't have looked at before and that generates trade from games where budgets haven't been available for hype or the target audience just doesn't warrant it.

Again, as I said previously, I've spent more money as a result of isos on games than I would have done otherwise, so your suggestions that my argument is childish falls flat on its face.

Sure my argument isn't politically correct, but it is realistic.

So... don't buy into marketing and hype and be patient. I bet you're the Vista type, eh?

Avoided it accordingly. Waiting for Win 7.

In the mean time, patience is irrelevant. Raw sales during the immediate time after release are what release performance and analysis are based on. Presuming you want to encourage and reward publishers for investing in strong software houses with good ips and creative game designs, then you have a limited time to spend that money and get the message across. If publishers manipulate demo release times and reviewers to avoid you being able to make that decision, but you're not blessed with infinitely deep pockets, then what choice do you have?

Which part of the move to dumbed down, recycled content did you miss over the past few years of development?

I don't disagree with you about how the developers manipulate the buyers, but that doesn't give you the right to steal it either way. If you can't wait for the demo, then the game has successfully been marketed to you. If you think the game isn't worth the risk, take your money elsewhere. By stealing, you are promoting the need for them to try for quick and easy sales.

You really need to drop the entitlement mentality.

It's not entitlement mentality; lets say the hype is due but previously poor releases in that brand ip put you off the idea buying again. Let's say there's been a change of tact to address previously poor implimentation or development, taking for example, Doom 3 RoE as a test case.

Now; you have doubts. you purchased and hated the full release, and the marketing says that in the expansion pack they've addressed these having listened to the community.

Do you;
a) do as you've suggested, and pass on the purchase just in case, telling the publisher that listening to the community is a waste of time, as is polishing product that was compromised by release date schedules?
b) buy it anyway and risk wasting even more cash?
or
c) leech the iso as the demo isn't out, and try it for yourself?

Clock is ticking. Not buying risks giving the publisher the wrong idea just as much as buying it might do if the product is poor. What are you going to do?

Ethics are relative. If someone plays dirty, you have to get a little dirty yourself if you're going to avoid falling into their trap.

There's your entitlement complex going off again.

You don't have to own the game the first day. Period. You can wait. You're worried about how the developer will respond to poor sales? Perhaps they should have done a better job earning your trust the first time around. Even if it's the second time around and they've redeemed themselves, if they haven't taken the effort to reach out and try to earn your trust by informing you more, it's their problem. At no point does any of this justify you stealing their game.

You need to exercise both patience and a little common sense. Patience should come with age, but you should seek help with the common sense from your parents.

Even if it's the second time around and they've redeemed themselves, if they haven't taken the effort to reach out and try to earn your trust by informing you more, it's their problem.

No, it's our problem, because this cycle repeats, and release quality gets poorer and poorer. The buying audience comes to expect that level of quality, and so crap games end up selling better than they should.

In the mean time, creative and original developers continue to be sidelined for high profile, recycled ips, and eventually leave the industry through frustration and disenchantment.

I can bite at the maturity comments, but why waste a good argument? The case at hand is the direction of our industry. Do we want the games development community to do the same way the movie industry did, with endless, recycled crap year on year until things eventually collaspe in on themselves?

It's not entitlement, it's called the aspiration for something better...

No, it's our problem, because this cycle repeats, and release quality gets poorer and poorer. The buying audience comes to expect that level of quality, and so crap games end up selling better than they should.

Oh, I see, you're a victim of a cycle that is the fault of everybody else but you. You're completely innocent and a true patriot for doing what everybody else does since they're just going to do it anyway, right? You're doing your part by illegally playing through dozens of games in the hopes that you'll find one to spend your money on. This sounds perfectly logical and justified - it's not pathetic at all.

It's not entitlement, it's called the aspiration for something better...

Who says you are entitled to something better? If you don't like what you're getting, don't pay for it. Go outside, get a girlfriend, do something useful. Don't sit there and act like you HAVE to play a game.

Don't sit there and act like you HAVE to play a game.

There's no have involved, you know that as well as I do. But if you WANT to, and you've spent years watching the industry degenerate and fellow developers leave or go broke because the finance houses, sorry publishers, reward nothing but crap and recycled vomit, then really what else do you do? Stop playing and leave something you love?

I have 20 years invested in this industry, 15 online. I don't neccessarily deserve something better, but I do want it.

There's no have involved, you know that as well as I do. But if you WANT to, and you've spent years watching the industry degenerate and fellow developers leave or go broke because the finance houses, sorry publishers, reward nothing but crap and recycled vomit, then really what else do you do? Stop playing and leave something you love?

Normally, an intelligent person would stop doing something that keeps giving them bad results, but you happily keep downloading games in hopes of finding one that is worth your money. Certainly a great use of your time!

Your attempts at justification are impressively bad, and you have the classic entitlement complex. You need to get away from the computer, as you use gaming as an addiction instead of casual entertainment.

So did you turn this into a piracy argument because you couldn't see a way to win the "I'm too blinkered to try new things" argument?

My take on this would be that I personally don't download ISO's of new games and try them because tbh I can't be bothered to find them, crack them, and I don't have time to play them.

However, I do wander over to other peoples houses, or have a look at what is on other peoples machines at LAN's and have a go. After playing some of these games I may well decide to buy them which is a win for the publisher.

If the same thing is happening with people downloading ISO's, is that such a bad thing?

Oh and btw downloading ISO's is not theft, it's copyright infringement, not quite the same thing.

Oh and btw downloading ISO's is not theft, it's copyright infringement, not quite the same thing.

I can see you were the top of your class. Taking something that doesn't belong to you is obviously not stealing.

You kids are so cute these days!

You should really check your facts before posting instead of trying to make an emotive argument out of nothing.

Theft is taking something away from somebody so that they can no longer use it, downloading an ISO hardly does this does it?

Secondly theft is a criminal offence, whereas copyright infringement is a civil offence. In a case of copyright infringement only the copyright holder can take legal action (or somebody representing him/her).

It doesn't matter if you like it or not in UK law it is not the same thing!

Is copyright infringement a good thing? Well the question is difficult to answer. Some companies do very well out of it and others make huge losses. It's a subjective argument with many shades of grey and not just black and white.

Should people download everything and pay the games makers no money? Definitely not!!

Is it a good thing for people to download something and try it and then buy the full version if they like it, or junk it if they don't?

Sounds reasonable to me.....

Ah, the attempts to argue semantics to justify your addiction. Another victim of an entitlement complex.

My addiction?

I've already said I don't download game ISO's, my entire collection is paid for and I have all of the boxes with the original CD/DVD's to prove it.

The only person here making an emotive argument based upon semantics is yourself. not to mention, law is about arguing semantics, have a look at some case law and talk to some lawyers about how it works (hell you could even do some law qualifications if you had the ability) .

Your argument of I'm right and you're wrong, "THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!!!" is just the sort of crap I have come to expect from a Nu Liemore government, not free thinking individuals....

The only person here making an emotive argument based upon semantics is yourself.

I represent the same people who want to take your toys away, so you naturally act out as if I'm an authority figure to you. Normally, I pick apart every single piece of your posts and quote and respond to it in kind. If you notice, I haven't done that at all for almost the entire thread.

You've still got your classic pre-teen entitlement problems, and you simply are incapable of forming a real argument. Despite my complete lack of interest in your replies (and my tiny dismissive replies), you continue to rage on about how much you aren't "technically" stealing.

If you conscience is so bad off that you need to justify it this hard, you need more help than I could even offer.

I represent the same people who want to take your toys away, so you naturally act out as if I'm an authority figure to you. Normally, I pick apart every single piece of your posts and quote and respond to it in kind. If you notice, I haven't done that at all for almost the entire thread.

ROFL, I have already stated I don't download torrents so it makes no difference to me if they are available or not. You obviously have not read a single reply and are doing the classic 5 year old hold hands over ears and scream loudly about what you want so that you can't hear anybody else's point of view because as far as you are concerned it doesn't really matter.

You've still got your classic pre-teen entitlement problems, and you simply are incapable of forming a real argument. Despite my complete lack of interest in your replies (and my tiny dismissive replies), you continue to rage on about how much you aren't "technically" stealing.

Really...... The point is that I'm trying to open your mind a little bit so that you can actually take part in a constructive discussion about the pros and cons of people downloading ISO's. Obviously you are refusing to let that happen and instead trying to make out that I'm some sort of thief as if that will somehow make your blinkered viewpoint more valid. There is a stimulating discussion to be had if you want to, or you could just shout "I'M RIGHT" as loud as you can in an attempt to drown everybody else out.

To be clear I personally do not download ISO's so I am not stealing, performing copyright infringement, or doing anything that could remotely be classified as being illegal, or immoral.

Are you going to actually read what I have written and pen an appropriate response, I doubt it as you are obviously suffering from last post syndrome, where in your mind the last person to post on a thread is obviously the winner of the argument. As a result I expect another mindless rant ignoring any and all points in the posts with various accusations thrown my way just so that you can have the last word.....

Again, you try to argue semantics for the sake of justification. You really expect me to believe that you don't illegally download programs when you're trying so damn hard to defend it? You can argue semantics all you want, but you know that it's stealing (and so does the DMCA) no matter how hard you try to spin it.

Keep saying the same things over and over with no substance or change, I'm sure you'll get somewhere with it.

I have to say that you shouldn't look to changing an entire game to fit a single map. CPM works amazingly well on a good number of maps under a variety of modes. It seems cpmctf2, while an awesome racetrack of a map, is "fun" but it just doesn't fit well to the model of CPM. I know you'll say how CPM used to be because of the ups cap and other things, but that is only a small part of the evolution of CPM because not just the game itself evolves but how people play it does as well. There's too much room and space on that map to make it the compact/high-velocity gameplay that CPM currently is. CPM3a is an example of a good spacing on a 1v1 map. Q3wcp14 for CTF. Both maps have very distinct routes that can be watched from positioning of great power. However cpmctf2 doesn't have any truly power positions to defend the mid of the map.

If cpmctf2 were narrower and more places to drop from upper (outer and mid) to lower level, you'd see that map play quite a bit better. Also, while those lifts are cool, narrowing those paths and making them jumppads would make the map quite a bit easier to handle for defensive.

Attached are my suggestions.

Attached Image: 69208-cpmctf2-2.jpg (713KB)

Attached Image: 69209-cpmctf2.jpg (804KB)

This is the core problem of cpm for ctf - as a mapper you find yourself quickly furrowed into a small number of workable layouts in an attempt at making the player predictable enough to aim at or limited enough to reduce his clearance speed, effectively defeating the point of the movement changes the mod is famous for.

Hence the enthusiam for a game where unpredictability and creative *isn't* game breaking for core game modes, as it is in cpm for CTF.

Again, spend some time with the editor open and you'll understand my point. If the movement is independant of the map, the map cannot control the movement. If the movement is unlimited in gain, then CTF cannot work.

I'm banging my head again... *sighes*

I disagree with the verticality of CPM. Q3wcp14 is a good example of how dangerous it is to make RJs to the upper levels. This leaves the EFC exposed in mid-flight and thus easier for defender. It's these kind of "limitations" of the map that forces the flag carrier to make decisions. By giving movement free reign over the map's architecture, you're only going to make the matter worse. People will swoop, bounce and dodge all the way back to base.

I agree that 14 shouldn't just be imitated for all future CTF maps. But the reason it works should be analyzed and used to make good design decisions. Cpmctf2 is a well designed and very well crafted map, but it just doesn't force flag carrier to make tough decisions --> should I exit high, mid or low? Should I try to RJ for this route and risk it all?

I think when looking at CTF maps, after the bases are complete, and defense seems balanced, the main focus should be on flag carriers and how to force them to make tough decisions if there are defenders in place. An exception to this, perhaps, is q3wcp22, which is also quite playable, but I think for a different reason since mid is so focused on one spot. Someone going low on 22 is going to continue going low (unless they are completely ignored/missed by defenders) while upper (harder to exit with) has more options when reaching mid --> however, high is a more difficult route to even get to mid.

On cpmctf2, it's easy to get to mid on all routes depending on pretty much chance encounters of where defenders are.

Your edit gives a perfect example; Camper Crossings is a vertical map. cpm movement doesn't suit vertical transistions at all, hence by breaking or limiting the movement, the map becomes successful, but defeats the point of the mod base altogether.

How many q3wcp14's can we have in one map pool?

On a related note;

http://ve3d.ign.com/articles/news/46134/Mirrors-Edge-Map-Editor

Weird how the responses went completely off topic. I agree with multiplayer though. A Tag game mode might be kind of fun too with multple players.

Been trying to get 3* on all time trials and it is a pain in the ass!! Atrium One has been the hardest so far for me to 3*, took me around 8 hours! Haven't been able to 3* Playground 3 but I haven't really tried it that much.

Yeah the replies were off topic, and at best, somewhat annoying.

On topic tho; as it happens, when it became apparent you could open the game up with the ut3 editor, there were artifacts found from a CTF style game mode. Can only wonder what kinda fun DICE had during testing and speculate whether we'd see it release later as a DLC or in a sequel.

And lol at 3* - it's infuritiating in one hand, but so crazily entertaining at the same time. My fav run so far has to be Challenge Two; that wallrun tuck-jump into empty space after the second beacon is a stomach churner the first time you do it :D

Trophy wise I'm midway through my Test of Faith/Prorunner combination. Maps like the Eden shopping center ambush really push you to approach the AI differently. Rather than waste time trying over and over to kill them all given the four SWAT that turn up after the machinegun guy are so close together, I ended up herding them into one corner instead before bolting up the escalators so I could do the wallrun to the atrium ceiling gangway from their blindside, using the terrain for cover rather than trying to dodge their rounds outright or disarm them. Felt really good having been a little clever about it when I cleared the jump on the third try... I really like the fact that you're blatantly not a one man army in this game, and I'm sure David Belle would be happy with the parkour interpretation, even if there are a considerable amount of Foucan-style rooftop jumps :p

You're doing Pro Runner and Test of Faith at the same time!! Don't think that's such a good idea :) I did Test of Faith on Normal (which looking back wasn't a good idea either). And then just went through the game quickly a second time to do the Pro Runner.

The only achievements I have left to do are getting the time trial ones, and the speed runs (which btw seem like they are going to be incredibly hard). Currently I think I'm at 44* out of 90* (including DLC) so I have a long ways to go.

And I know what you mean about the wallrun tuck-jump, that one was a bit tricky lol. The trickiest jump so far though has to be wallrun into triple tuck jump on the horizontal pillars on Atrium One. Cause you need the angle and the jumps to be just right in order to land on a tiny ass platform or else you fall all the way down and your run is over.

Yeah speedrun seems v hard in comparison to time trial, but I'm loving the challenge. The same with Prorunner + Test of Faith; it makes for a very refreshing change of pace.

so far i just played the demo version. cant wait to get the full game.

If you've played the demo, you've pretty much played the full game. It doesn't get much more creative, sadly, and it's really short.

There's only 12 odd maps that get played regularly in any form of quake 3 currently; ME has 10+ when you factor in the DLC.

Step outside the single player experience; you'll find it much richer in time trial and speedrun.

Yeah, I was just talking singleplayer, though. =P

i dont know how you can claim its nearly perfect when in fact most of the moves are quite scripted and theres not much variation once using a particular move

They're not 'quite' scripted; they are scripted, with the exception of the exit direction on some of the wall based moves. That's not neccessarily a bad thing phil; just different to what you're used to from the genre. After all, what is Street Fighter but a vast combination of various scripted moves and responses? What rule is there to say that wouldn't work in an fps?

The important point is that all of these scripted moves are combinable, and all interact and scale differently depending on how they're ordered.

I'm worried you'll take this as argument rather than engagement with your point, it's not negative. :P

My comp can't handle ME so I can't play the demo yet, I do agree with the direction you're suggesting, perhaps more than you realise as in many ways CPMesque design is done aside from some fundamental changes in PMX. The ultimate FPS probably looks something like a cross between Parkour and skateboarding. Scripted moves though are a poor way of doing things, we'd need to find ways of taking the concepts and having more natural interactions arise out of it. For example a very short swing grapple becomes grabbing a surface to swing around it, wall running can be done with friction rules etc.

These are the sorts of movements we should be looking for:
Russian Parkour
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rxv8SS1XU_8

Gibbon swinging
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eV-gOL4t9Vk

Gibbon Swinging > ME!

That's not even a fair comparison! =(

lolol nice find :p

I don't have much to contribute to this conversation. Only, that I've seen my friend play ME a little and it looks like it has huge potential to be fun. It looks kind of like they have taken many of the ideas from tricking and made it into a more tangible, less abstract, game. Looks fun, will try it soon myself.

Less abstract, easily accessible and fun are appropriate descriptions yes, but its important to remove the recent singleplayer mindset that games have to be huge and massively varied in environments or enemies; me is quiet focused on the micro-management level of gameplay. You'll encounter the same set of opponents several times before their abilities and weapon set change. You may also find yourself repeating the same scenario or encounter several times before you find a method to pass it, but its very similar to online deathmatch games in that respect; outwiting and defeating the opponent or obstacle is more rewarding than the variation of the surroundings. I strongly recommend playing without a guide the first time through, or you really will rob yourself and ruin the game.

Either way, I hope you enjoy it as much as I have.

Vedic ruins every thread that he posts in with his mindless bickering.

there's even a sort of stafe/circle-jump to gain speed in mirror's edge:

Circle Jump \0/

Really more like a dodge jump in UT.