Gun Combat= No movement, very stationary when shooting

[Blackwolf]

I don't think it's that big a change, or even one that exists.

HA weapons weren't in the game yet, it was all AR stuff. Once you start seeing the low accuracy weapons get into it more, you'll see more twitchy run and gun tactics at close quarters.

How often did anyone run and gun with MA weapons in PS1? Not very, and they typically ended up dead. Meanwhile standing still for HA combat isn't advisable and likely isn't possible in PS1, unless your target hasn't seen you yet, or your at longer range. It was usually done at such close quarters that your best defense was rapid movement, and accuracy wasn't as big an issue at that range.

So I wouldn't call this a change of pace just yet.

[Dreamcast]

When people fought with Medium range weapons in Planetside....They did move to the sides at least, especially if it was one vs one....Nobody stood still like in Planetside 2.


Also for people thinking this is hipfire vs Aimfire....Not at all, Their is games where you can use iron sights and still move fast side to side...so is not that.


It could be that accuracy is severly effected...moving side to side is slow as hell...or the devs arn't that great FPS as somebody already mentioned.

[Rbstr]

Originally Posted by goneglockin

Right on. Old skool shooters required you be able to walk and chew gum, to move and shoot as one.

Consolization of shooters decided walking and chewing gum was too much for your average xbawks gamer. And so here we are today, with people actually discussing the modern shooter like it's anything but a complete joke and using phrases for game mechanics that should be banned from video game forums such as "in real life."

Honestly makes my blood boil. People have no frame of reference any more/don't remember what made shooting games fun in the first place. I find them pretty boring now on average. Not competitive at all.

What the fuck ever. Halo is run and gun and that's nearly the definitive "xbawx" game. BF2, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat Source all have sight mechanics and no console port at all. ADS is not a console vs. pc mechanic.

The only thing "wrong" with it is that you don't like it. And you use the same old tired argument that every codger resistant to change: It's not the way it used to be.
Go play TF2 or something if you want to bounce around.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by Rbstr

What the fuck ever. Halo is run and gun and that's nearly the definitive "xbawx" game. BF2, Red Orchestra, Day of Defeat Source all have sight mechanics and no console port at all. ADS is not a console vs. pc mechanic.

I've got to agree here on this one. If your going to justify mechanics, do it without degrading a large potential audience. Don't forget that PS2 will be the only one of it's kind to compete against not just other FPS's but console FPS's as well.

Halo also had a solid combat experience. Everything about the animations and gunplay in that game can be called solid. I'd be excited to see PS2 match up to that.

But when it comes down to it, for PS2 to succeed it's going to have to have an intense and deep combat experience with infantry. If we are going to compare PS2 to BF3/COD, we have to be able to say that it is BF3/COD+++. The best way would be to say "It's everything that BF3/COD is in the gunplay but on a whole other level, and with that you have the scale and vehicle options of actual war."'

If this can be accomplished with a high TTK or a low TTK I don't really care, but it is going to have to be done to allow players to grow to fit a large skill envelope. Not only this but it also has to allow for players of lower skill to at least be useful on the field.

Do we do this by making players fast and giving guns a large COF to make dodging and ducking important? Do we slow things down and lower players health to make positioning more important? How many tactical tools can we give the player to make use of during the actual fight? I don't really care. I play tribes: a which I love to death, so I'd vote to make players fast, with a ton of health, and have plenty of things for the player to juggle while still keeping his sights on the enemy. Don't just have rock/paper/sissors between classes, give each class rock/paper/sissors/boxknife/shovel against the same class. If SOE decides to take another route I'd support them as long as they make it deep and fun.

I'm not even going to bother answering this poll. The answers are loaded as shit.

[Dreamcast]

I dont see the whole console vs PC moving competition u guys are talking about.


I know games where moving is very fast, halo,COD,etc on console and games on PC where moving is very fast quake,unreal tournament,etc


Also games where moving is quite slow on both pc and console....so this has nothing to do with that.

What this has to with it, is the developers aim of the game.

[SKYeXile]

Originally Posted by elfailo

If movement speed is low, then yes they do dumb down games. If you die in 1 or 2 shots, you won't have time to fight back or turn the tables. If movement speed is low, then even people with slow brains will be able to keep up. It becomes a game of whoever sees the other guy first wins. The best way to make sure that you see the other guy first is to walk fixed routes, or camp. Trying to escape becomes harder and harder, fights last shorter and shorter, leaving less and less room for playing strategically.

Glockin is right, this became the dominant type of shooter when consoles became huge, because it accommodates joysticks much better.

yea, fast TTK in an MMO...its going to run into problems.

IMO while movement should be fast and fluid, TTK should be higher. this achieves:

> More level playing field with a wide age audience, obviously older people cant react as fast a 13 yr olds.
> Less reliance on having a low ping.
> Rewards target tracking more, harder to spray randomly and get kills.
> less QQ, eg: "omg i died and he wasn't even on my screen"

[The noob]

While slightly unrelated (to the topic at hand), in regards to the TTK, higby already replied to someone else that they are still tuning the damage, and that had TB come another day, he may have played with the exact opposite, with the TTK being too high.

[MacXXcaM]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

TTK should be higher. this achieves:

> More level playing field with a wide age audience, obviously older people cant react as fast a 13 yr olds.
> Less reliance on having a low ping.
> Rewards target tracking more, harder to spray randomly and get kills.
> less QQ, eg: "omg i died and he wasn't even on my screen"

This pretty much sums up what I think about it.

[Toppopia]

Originally Posted by SKYeXile

yea, fast TTK in an MMO...its going to run into problems.

IMO while movement should be fast and fluid, TTK should be higher. this achieves:

> More level playing field with a wide age audience, obviously older people cant react as fast a 13 yr olds.
> Less reliance on having a low ping.
> Rewards target tracking more, harder to spray randomly and get kills.
> less QQ, eg: "omg i died and he wasn't even on my screen"

Ah less, the times i would yell when you see someone round a corner, pump 10 bullets into their face, then die, and see they lost no health... Annoying times indead... Because i live in New Zealand, i have high pings and enemies kill me almost before i have rounded the corner.. Then i yell HACKS!!! at my poor TV.

[Marinealver]

Then light assault would be useless lol.

Okay for ground combat.

Light assault will need SMG, short range high rate of fire average to mediocure accuracy. Basicly spray and prey. Their mobility will make up for any lack of weapon range.

The Heavy Assault will be having Squad Automatic Weapons, Sniper Rifles or Anti Vehicle Weapons, they are the more static fighters.

Infiltraitors only need a pistol and a knife . Hey the REAL recon guys do pack light. Moves faster and mobility and timing over firepower.

Everyone else should get a decient Rifle good at medium to long range. Okay at close quaters though a shotgun should also be an option if some close range punch is needed.

MAXs Well they are you mobile Machine Guns, Anti Vehicle and Man Portible Air Defence. Though I wouldn't mind if they had say a bash or some type of meele attack for those lone gunners who would want to circle jerk a MAX and shoot it in the back.

[wasdie]

Originally Posted by The Kush

I would prefer the shooting style to be more like halo/ps1 not bf3/cod like it is now. Quit dumbing down the game it takes more skill to hit moving target and that makes the game more fun

"dumbing down the game"

Ignorant, that's all that thought is. You sound stupidly ignorant and closed minded. That's the problem with gamer's today, and a lot of them on this board. It was always better when we were younger, when games were simpler, when they were more "difficult" in their eyes. Completely ignoring the fact that you've gotten better at games and games now require different skillsets, not just the same crap as they did 10 years ago.

Yet no, you can't think like that, to damn logical. No, it's dumbed down and it's all everybody elses fault.

Everybody else "dumbed down" without thinking of the larger picture. A person who applies the same skills they employ while playing CS to a game like BF3 is utterly destroyed.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by wasdie

It was always better when we were younger, when games were simpler, when they were more "difficult" in their eyes.

Some people, and devs, think that just because something is new, that it's an evolution. This is not true, especially when we're talking about 4th wall breaking aid from the game such as killcam, 3D spotting, etc.

As for ADS vs hipfire lasers, neither of them is, objectively, the wrong decision. ADS isn't better or worse just because it's new and because way back in the day, the first shooters like Doom used pure twitch gameplay; it's simply a matter of ADS is the popular thing right now and making a Quake-gameplay MMO would be financial suicide.

[ArmedZealot]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

it's simply a matter of ADS is the popular thing right now and making a Quake-gameplay MMO would be financial suicide.

While BF3 and COD have sold more copies than any other game I doubt games like Tribes: A, and Counter Strike could be considered financial flops.

But this is all besides the point, the devs have already implemented ADS, not only this but they are basing their side grade and customization shop around it. The only thing we should be arguing is how often it is used and where it should be used.

[wasdie]

Originally Posted by Stardouser

Some people, and devs, think that just because something is new, that it's an evolution. This is not true, especially when we're talking about 4th wall breaking aid from the game such as killcam, 3D spotting, etc.

As for ADS vs hipfire lasers, neither of them is, objectively, the wrong decision. ADS isn't better or worse just because it's new and because way back in the day, the first shooters like Doom used pure twitch gameplay; it's simply a matter of ADS is the popular thing right now and making a Quake-gameplay MMO would be financial suicide.

ADS is more than just popular, it changes the pace and perspective of the entire game. It's a solid gameplay choice for a team based shooter.

[Stardouser]

Originally Posted by elfailo

More specifically on-topic, I don't like being slowed down and I don't like sight aiming. It's not like I can't get used to it or won't enjoy the game at all because of it, but I think there are superior options. An extra weapon slot for each class with a short-range weapon that doesn't require you to slow down or aim down sights would be one of them.

Shotguns! Though with everyone wearing armor, it would have to be some kind of futuristic and more powerful equivalent.

PS1 has shotguns doesn't it? But it's a short step from shotguns to shotguns with 1 hit kill slugs and slug sniping...