this has happened every game i've played vs funnyb... i'd like it to be fixed. Bored of some newby swede going round giving all that with his 96$ and new flat.. RARRDY RARRDY RARRR

ahah $ : D l2use spawnsystem betch!

off to italy tomorrow :|

fail

I miss random spawn system.
I miss spawn-fraging and being spawn-fraged.
I miss hub.

so true - loved spawn fragging and didn't mind one bit being spawn fragged

You said it.

q3 or cq3 spawns were better than this shit. The fact that your spawnpoint depends on the position of your enemy makes it incredibly shitty and boring.

Isnt this game still in beta?

Did u know it was free also?

I would pay for it if it was good.

The game is good, infact its the only game i actually waste my time on..

I would also pay, but only for a premium account that has extra's.

I love how you do actually use the word "waste" (:

Point proven I think.

I do sometimes see playing (all) games a waste of time... (still something i find enjoyable tho)

Its not like its a skill you use in the real word, unless ur pro and get paid to do it ofcourse.

helps with concentration

banned phrases here plz don't use them again.
Those are excuses to not improve the game on even basic stuff, like positional sound (good on 99, terrible on 2009) and not adding maps (thousands on q3).

beta--> not really. Qlive started on 2007, it's on open beta since about 10 months ago and there won't be more people playing if it goes "live" since now it's available for everyone and 80% of all registration played at most 1 game then quit (http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1789528)
(offtopic: ID should now focus on getting those players back because more or less they fixed the issue why it happened)

free--> it's not charity, they made to game to earn money as any company does.

now you can proceed with the discussion lol.

It doesnt cost you anything to play does it? so yes its free :)

It's a sad state of affairs when you consider the intrusion of ads to be irrelevant to cost.

Its irrelvant to me.

as it is to almost everyone, or has taking a walk in the city suddenly become not free?

preaching to the choir

yep, but at least the choir is listening :)

about beta, it's an endless discussion apparantly, even though it's really easy:
A game leaves the beta phase as soon as the developers say so. Not a second earlier.
Everything else like: "Not being worked on enough", "already done," or "it should be be in beta despite being released" are just opinions and don't really matter.

"free" on the internet has always meant: it can be legally obtained without paying money.
Sure it takes time and bandwidth and the person offering it might make a profit through other means, but the product is still free. If you can come up with a more precise term please say it.


other than that I am enjoying the irony of you telling an user admin about "banned phrases" :D

The most important rule about being an admin on ESReality, is that it does not make you more important than other readers.

Respect m8!

so?

it's not about the importance of the person, but the knowledge he should have.

differently put, an admin should in general have a better knowledge of what is banned on a site than the average user. So, a statement like "this or that is banned, please, don't do it anymore" is more expected to be from an admin to a user and not vice versa ;)
But that does not make the indivual right or more important or anything.

Was a joke man, calm the fuck down.

I don't like jokes :(

I even put "meight" :(

:(

busted!

:´[

If people gave id constructive feedback then maybe they'd take concerns like this a little more seriously.

Why would id want to make another free game if they're just going to get bitched at by the people playing it.

Sad.

there are loads and loads of suggestions here on esr and on ql forums.
When they do a good update there's a great reception even here.

and when you say "free game" you shouldn't imply the intention of ID is not to win money. Other thing is that it seems they are not doing so (for several reasons) but that's not what they want ofc

There are hundreds of constructive posts in the Quake Zero sandbox thread! At that point, everyone was optimistic about it. Sync even supported the thread, and said it would have direct influence on the game's development.

Why would ANYONE be constructive now, when they've ignored everything that was said, and openly stated that their views for QL are in support of a more casual game?

I would disagree that they are targeting it to just a casual game... yes they want to target casual gamers but that's to get the numbers up... and the more ppl that play the more competition (look at Counter Strike).

Their new non-advertise based model, with premium subscriptions is obviously going to be targeted toward the competitive players. They have definitely been focusing on making it not just a easy pick up game but also a well balanced competitive game.

The pay-to-play features will be focused on competition and I'm totally willing to pay for those features.

If you had been around the QL forums during closed beta, you'd have heard them say that they were not trying to make QL a competitive game. The CS example doesn't work, since roughly the same percent of people play CS competitively that do so in Quake.

CS didn't spread because it had tournaments, and they haven't helped to promote the game to anyone who wouldn't have been interested in it already. WoW has tournaments now, but how many people do you think really started playing just because it has a competitive scene?

id isn't making money on advertising (there was a post a few days ago that quoted how little they make) and the small percent of people who will sign up for premium services won't jump the gap. They know this, you should know this... Not only are they unwilling to properly support competition, but from a business perspective, they shouldn't. The only reason they are putting it in is so they can license the technology to someone else.

Also, remember that id answers to Bethesda now.

BF:Heroes has 3million registered players or so now and they released a new map to celebrate it...

In comparison 917,133 have created a QL account and played the Crash game and 716,198 have completed an online game.

quakelive has 10 thousand active players, at most. It isnt "dead" but its not even close to cs (60k on 1.6 and 70k on css) or cod (50k on cod4 and 80k on mw2). The problem is that quake is and always will be an "elite" game. Its unrealistic, fast-paced and has a huge learning curve and skillgap in comparison to other fps games. The average Joe prefers games like CS, cod or BF. So i dont really see whats the point of Quakelive, besides maybe being an advertisement venue for ID and Bethesda games.

It isn't unpopular because of it's aesthetics, it's unpopular because the game has so many negative aspects to it (Which earn it the "elite" title you gave it).

QL didn't live up to ids hopes and they've effectively abandoned it for the most part, you can say good bye to a new Quake Arena game that's for sure, the most anyone could hope for now is Doom4 MP having its own team dedicated to that side of things.

not having a new quake game can actually be a good thing if we always have talented modders in the community such as Rhea, arQon and that q4max guy (AnthonyJ?), and we manage to stick to one single game and not be split between 10 different games and 900 mods in each game.
My biggest hope is for PMX to be good and attract both cpm/qw players as vq3 players. Incase that fails, my second choice would actually be q4, yes it was horribly broken when it was released but after ID patches and q4max releases its quite good and theres rumours about it going open-source soon, so there might be some interesting stuff still to be done. Not to mention its gameplay is a slightly spiced up version of vq3.

q4 is just not very pretty..

q4 is just not very pretty..

As far as i know the open sourcing (^^) would only affect Doom3 and not quake4.

rofl

In any debate about how QL should be they always just ask fox tbh.

oh no :/

They should have learned from Q4!

now on the topic and third post in a row....

one positive aspect of current spawn system is to be able to control where the enemy will respawn at all times, not only to get spawn frags but also to make him spawn far away so I can get items or positioning.
Rapha does it a lot actually, that's why sometimes he stops moving or does it awkwardly.

and how in hell is that a positive aspect?

ok, so when it comes to aiming everyone is complaining about randomness.
When it comes to ping and packetloss, everyone is complaining about random warping.

But when it's about spawns random is suddenly good?


Why not accept that controlling spawns is a skill and actually adds depth to a game, e.g. don't kill opponent at pillars because then he will get ra.

I think the ability to somewhat control when the oppopent is spawning is much preferable than a big final being possibly decided by some lucky random spawn.


Of course, the system shouldn't be so controlable that one can abuse it by forcing several spawn frags in a row but that can probably be solved. (e.g. make it so a player can't spawn in the same place twice in a certain time frame).

So imo a fixed, good system > randomness.

just because a spawn isn't controlled by your opponent doesn't mean its random...

true, I was kind of relating to mefajpE's comment as well others who wanted a random system (in other threads).

But I'm curious: How would you say a non-random system that isn't player-controlled should look?

I mean rotating through the spawn numbers from 1 to 10 would be an example, but I don't think anyone wants that...

Well, VQ3 was furthest from death/body (so somewhat controlled still...) and that was/is better.

plus initial vq3 spawns at the beginning of the game. some of them are so retarted right now. like t7 for instance where it is possible for both players to spawn at SG and PG

I think enemy AND corpse location should play a role...

Enemy position at time of frag, yes.

what ini said, i'd prefer the vq3 spawn system

so it is controlled.

its controlled, but not by your opponent..

only if you keep suiciding.

Otherwise I'd say the opponent does have some influence about the position he frags you in.

Couldn't say if anyone ever really used that, but I'd think the possibility is there...

well yeah it was used, even by myself, but its more like "im not gonna kill you here cause you could spawn on my item" instead of "im gonna kill you here so you spawn as far away from my item as possible".

And yeah, i can live a lot better with the first one. :)

so you, as the opponent did control where someone spawned, so0 it was not random? ;)

when did i say i wanted a random spawn system?

you didn't.

you said: "just because a spawn isn't controlled by your opponent doesn't mean its random... "

and I asked: "How would you say a non-random system that isn't player-controlled should look?"

well i wouldn't call vq3s spawn system player controlled :)

so, you are saying you did control it, but it's not controlled?

ok :D

spawn system kicks in when the player spawns, at that point your opponent can't do anything about where you spawn anymore in vq3. If you decide NOT to kill someone in an area because he might spawn on your item then its not really controlling the spawn, since nobody died. :P
And i don't remember ever killing someone in some place just so he spawns in a certain area in vq3. If i killed someone then i might know where he respawns and i might get some respawn kills, but i didn't kill him in that particular place cause i wanted him to spawn somewhere. :)

but you can control it so it is not necessarily random ...

you should rename to vedic, i heard that name is free now :/

harsh :[

you know why men prefer a good beer over anything else? because the beer shuts up. you don't live up to your nick ;D

oh yeah?

well, you read and type a lot for a blind guardian.

try again ;)

you didn't even see what I wrote :(

what have you been up to since leaving mtw?

i was never really a member of mtw in the first place :x but not much tbh

ouch! thats gotta sting!

before you know it they tell you you make sense like Gillz

OH GOD NNNNOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

it still is a bit random in ql aswell tho right?

i had a game yesterday where i was standing at gl on ztn, and had just killed the enemy.

i spammed plasma and rail to sg spawn point and didnt move at all. he spawned there 3 or 4 times in a row and then spawned somewhere else.

so i figure there has to be some random factor still involved.

He spawned like that because you didn't move. Are you sure you didn't move at all?

my question is why does he spawn somewhere else after 4 times or so despite me not moving AT ALL (the aim of not moving was ofcourse to force him to spawn there all the time, thus me wondering why he started spawning somewhere else after the initial 4 kills)

to be sure that im not moving, i will review the demo later today.

i went way back against the wall and kept spamming plasma and rail, i think i jumped a few times to get a better view, but im pretty sure i did not move around on a horizontal plane.

just checked, i am very positive i didnt move, but could be that he took his time spawning after the fourth spawnfrag

It's possible it has some small randomness ala the Q3 spawn system which had some too.

There's a MASSIVE difference between the current QL system and VQ3 in terms of control.

In QL once the player has been fragged you have a one second plus to re-position yourself so that the enemy will spawn at a certain location, meaning you have direct influence over where he spawns (1 second is more than enough in most instances).

In VQ3 once the player has been fragged you have no influence over the respawn location and you can respawn faster.

agreed.

+

This is the PROBLEM with the system.

Agreed, spawn system needs a make-over

This is an interesting point and not something that's been addressed at all. It is one of the commonest and most unfair spawn situations. Ranking wouldn't work because the ranks depend on which items are available (so perhaps dynamic ranking at the moment of death?), if Mega's not there and RA is it's no use ranking the two spawns equally.

maybe both players should spawn at points that are equally far away from the most important items? this way it wouldn't matter if the items are there or not

sounds good in theory, but I don't think it's easy to implement. Might turn out that you only have one set of spawns for that situation and I'm not sure that's desirable.

i'd like that a lot more than having my opponent to get a lucky spawn and thus both main items :x

what if you get the lucky spawn? ;P

still sucks.

tbh, i dont like how the game is developing right now, at least on my skill level and a bit above. right now, it is mostly spawnabuse and it takes a lot of the fun away.

The whole respawing system just creates so many problems all over the place and it's nigh on impossible to make it work fairly without creating unfair situations.

I was thinking the same. I would imagine it would also be really messy trying to make something that does actually calculate a fair spawn.

Everything just seems overly complicated. Things need to be made simple again. Simple always works better.

No respawns.

easy way to fix spawns is to make symetrical and mirrored maps

thank you very much for your contribution, we'll send a mail to id software right away

he's got a point tho :P

So you want to play duels in a box?

If u think about it, we're doing that already

pleasure, some maps dont have 1 half copied and rotated 180 symetry/mirror.

if your going to play duel in tournies, you'd be better off with duel specific spawnpoints, and player restarts after each frag

add two flags and the gametype would be better aswell!

It's time to all switch to HOONYMODE.

says the guy who plays QL....blasphemy :/

Hoonymode is good but it interrupts the flow of duel gameplay, which is one of the most interesting aspects of it. Making a 15 point comeback is not the same as a 15 frags comeback. I would rather see some sort of weird mix of classic duel play with hooneymode, perhaps 2x 5 min halfs with each player picking their spawn and then switching them at half time, and making the score the sum of frags from both halfs, which would prevent "garbage time" since the player in control would try to get as many frags as possible to go to the second half with a confortable lead, while the other player would either try to steal control from him or simply run away to make a comeback on the second half possible. If u think about it, this actually makes the gameplay alot more like tennis (which is probably the most enjoyable 1v1 gameplay for both the players and the spectators), where 1 player is attacking and the other is defending.

I would love to see/play a Hoonymode tournament in QL, just to see if it would really work or not. I think it could work, and atleast there wont be no more timelimit 10 bs! Not that I care much for that cause I prefer 10 minutes over 15.

I think the major problem will be that the game/maps are designed/balanced for traditional rules.

Hoony mode would be the best if it was considered the default 1vs1 rule set and the game/maps designed/balanced accordingly.

What do you think of a Hoonymode that's based on streaks instead of points? As in you score until you get killed as the control player. Then the other skills that Hoonymode lacks come into play too.

what would be the limit?

time, frags, or something else?

One frag every X seconds in my opinion.

I meant when the match will end.

Maybe you could design a game based entirely on frag streaks.

x frags in x seconds = 1 frag streak
1 frag streak = 1 point

imo, that would emphasize spawnluck even more

Only in the current rules of duel/team no?

well, maybe I misunderstood you, but I thought this idea was a "normal" duel, but only streaks in a certain time get counted.

And in that case a player who gets unlucky spawns that get him killed fast will suffer, while getting lucky spawns next to an armor or mega can boost him enough so it doesn't turn into a streak.

The second post was just thinking out loud, I agree with the assessment of that in normal duel.

Ends when you're a certain number of frags ahead of the opponent maybe, after the opponent's last go.

so there isn't a fixed time the match will end?

I don't like this, I can just see so many games lasting two turns because one guy was that little bit superior and kept control and claimed frag after frag.

In these instances it's just as bad as normal duel (except for the original topic one),will put off many players and in the situations where both players are fairly equal it somewhat promotes defensive play, avoiding the opponent until you have a chance.

Regular Hoony rewards experimentation and aggression a bit better since if something does fail it only costs one frag which in most circumstances can theoretically be reclaimed the next round.

lets make it "street-quake" one player always defense, the other offense, after one succesful +back, they switch

lets all play stacraft

Let both players in a 1on1 start off with full armor, health and all weapons. Oh wat dats clan arena

If id doesn't have access to data about death points, routes, etc I would be surprised at their negligence/stupidity. There's probably a mathematical way to solve this even if they can't alter spawns (I recall sync saying they can't on ztn due to copyright issues). In q3 you had to try to apply a general rule to maps that didn't exist yet, but QL is an enormous information gathering machine and that should be taken advantage of.

Here's my first idea, off the top of my head. For each point, calculate the probability of survival for twenty seconds (or whatever) given the fragger's coordinates at the time of spawning. For example, let's pretend there are only four ztn spawn points: GL platform, LG, upper yellow, and shotty, and the enemy is at the back of the GL platform when you spawn. The made up odds for each point:

GL: 30%
LG: 88%
UY: 90%
SG: 60%

Then list the points according to the total percentage (here rounded) of survivals they contribute:

GL: 11%
LG: 32%
UY 33.5%
SG: 22.5%

And you have your odds of spawning at each point.

I'm not proposing this particular scheme be copy pasted, but the point is to demonstrate how id could use the information at their disposal for these kinds of decisions.

.

well, how about changing spawn time of items/weapons
i mean, PU doesnt spawn at 0:00 right? spawning means nothink(!) for the first x sec (x element [0:60]) if you have no items/weapons on map available

This is a reply to #95 (Vo0) - you know, I'd really like to see a serious tournament with HM too :)

The idea behind HM was not only to remove the random factor from spawns which in my view ruined many otherwise good games and to do away with the time limit, but also to provide a match format that would be more intelligible to spectators and allow commentators time to comment on each frag.

To do this, though, it required maps designed with the gamemode in mind (as has been noted in these comments) and of course it really needed good players. I don't think it ever got a proper try-out.

I totally understand when ppl say it isn't as much fun as the traditional spawn system but I didn't design it to be the gamemode of choice for "fun" it's designed for competition when you want the winner to be the best and not just the luckiest or the one who happens to excel at spawn raping their opponent.

One thing I noticed in many years of watching Quake 1vs1 matches is that often the "first point" was really interesting and hard-fought over. HM is a gamemode that consists entirely of those "first points".

I think HM is a step forward in the direction of "professional" quake, but there is still a lot of work to be done with it. For instance, stopping the game after each frag is kinda annoying, i much prefer the flow of classic duel gameplay. So i would rather see something like 3 frag lead=1 point, this wouldnt interfere with blow-out games (where HM is better since we dont have to watch 7 minutes of spawn raping), but in a match like Vo0 vs rat we could see 1 single point lasting almost 10 minutes.

Another thing i noticed is that HM usually works better on ffa/2v2 maps, rather than 1v1 maps, where the 1st fight usually occurs to soon, which is better from traditional duel but not for HM. But HM doesnt only need maps especifically made for it, it would also require some gameplay changes (considering we are talking about cpm here). Since the 1st fight is so important in HM, we cant have a weapon that kills freshly spawned players in 1 shot (direct rocket hit) and no super deadly LG to RG combos.

Something else that could be changed in HM is how u choose spawns, i dont actually remembers exactly how it works, but its something like each player pick their spawns, and each round 1 player spawn at their chosen spawn and the other spawns at a random one? It would be better to have a set of spawns for each player (for instance RA and GL on cpm22) and each player would chose their preferred set of spawns so they could elaborate routes for picking the best items avaliables, rather than chosing just their own and possibly being unlucky and dieing right away because their opponent got a too close spawn.

Lastly i would like to see what PMX changed in regards to HM.

I'm also not too familiar with the system, but I would say that both sides should decide on spawns manually for each round. However, you can't re-use a spawn until your opponent has used it. This would solve any "best" spawn on any map, since if one person tried to abuse it, the other person could continue to abuse it as well.

I'm against changing it to more frags, but I'd be in favor of weaponstay to stop +back/camping.

What if the player in the lead had to cycle through the spawns in the game while the other one would be able to chose his preffered? This would remove any randomness/luck, altho games where the 2 players are in the same skill level could take forever since HM doesnt have a timelimit.

About weaponstay, wouldnt that make the game even more about +back/camping? On a map like dm6 for instance, where the rail is extremely important and its not easy to pick it up, the 1st player to grab it could simply deny it for the whole game.The only game i know that uses weaponstay for duels is doom, and from what ive seen doom duels are quite boring.

Well, doesn't my suggestion pretty much cycle the spawns already? If the spawn your opponent picked was good, you can choose to use it for your turn. So long as there are more total rounds than there are spawns, you would have to reuse spawns eventually because you would run out of spawns to pick that your opponent hasn't used yet. Additionally, this would allow new strategies of denying spawns and forcing spawns, but still keeping it balanced between players.

Suppose you played 10 rounds. The map you pick isn't very balanced, and there is one overly best spawn... Your opponent picks that spawn first (there shouldn't be any priority, but first come first serve to spawn picks). It doesn't matter who picks it first, because you can always pick it instantly on the next round since he can't... OR, you can choose to use it later, or not pick that spawn again for the rest of the game, and pick it again on the last round. Even though you've controlled that spawn so it can't be used again for the bulk of the match, it's still balances since you both would only get 1 use of the spawn each.

The weaponstay system is used in Doom 2 (fraglimits, no timelimits) to great effect. The only time this makes for boring campy/+back games is on maps with dead ends (see entryway), but the desired function still works when the spammer runs out of ammo... Ammo needs to be rare, and in very dangerous/vulnerable positions, but weapon position can be more liberal. Spamming is very dangerous, since it will leave you vulnerable unless you go to refill the ammo, thus promoting confrontation in all forms. Additionally, you now have to pay very close attention to how many shots your opponent has made, and keep track of their ammo pickups.

This system would still stay true to the relationship between aim and brain, too.

Thinking about it more, the spawn system could have some other fun uses. Suppose you have some strat for a certain spawn, but your opponent will certainly pick a spawn that is good against it... you try to eliminate spawns in a way to get him to use that spawn so he can't use it against the spawn you want to use.

Quake probably isn't deep enough to use this effectively, though.

but all of that "i pick spawn A, you pick spawn B, i pick spawn C, you pick spawn D" would be pre-game? Maybe there could a set of "fair" spawns in the first round, and the player who lost this round would be able to chose the next round, and so on.

You pick spawns, play, someone wins and gets a point, and you both have to start over and pick spawns. There would be no need to decide who goes first or anything so long as you played an even number of rounds.

If your opponent picks the best spawn first, it doesn't matter since you can just pick it second. He can then pick it again 3rd, and you can pick it again 4th, etc... If there is no clear best spawn, this will be very dynamic, and even if there is a single best spawn, you can just deny use of it by merely not using it until the very last round. An example would be him picking the best spawn on the first round, and then you use it on the 10th (final) round. This still makes it fair, since you're both getting equal uses of the spawn.

It works as so:
- Coin Toss chooses who goes first
- Game 1 = Player A has choice of all spawns and picks first, Player B can choose from the remaining spawns
- Game 2 = Reverse
- Game 3 = Back to Game 1

I don't think there is/would be a need to force all spawns to be picked in maps designed for HM.

I think it would be preferable if the spawns that were picked were elimanated (at least for a few rounds).

Cuase else you might end up with the players always picking (or even having to pick) the same spawn, and that's not really exciting...

Not with maps/spawns designed for the mode, where being predictable would be bad.

Though I guess the other player shouldn't know/choose his spawn but get one randomly in such a situation.

could u make a poll with classic duel tl 10, classic duel tl 15 and Hoonymode as options? Some people might not be familiar with the system, but i would like to see what they would prefer to watch since everyone complains about tl 10 being too short and not allowing comebacks, while tl 15 is boring and too long for bo5 matches.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1807410

If there were some maps that had better spawn/item placement, it could be a major strategic addition to the game.

In the above example, you wouldn't have to play every spawn. It allows for the ability to do so (so long as you were both cycling spawns instead of picking a spawn that your opponent has used), but it also works to eliminate bad spawns entirely.

I misread slightly actually, yeah, that seems a fairly solid rule.

The only thing I can't balance is the round system. It would have to be an even number of rounds in order to make for a fair spawn choice system, but how do you play the rounds out?

Let's say it was 10 rounds - do you play until someone gets to 6 points, or all 10 rounds regardless? There has to be some way to scale it, because someone might not get a chance to use a spawn if you end it when someone gets the majority score. However, one could argue that he should have used a spawn sooner, if he was at risk of losing. It might need to be more rounds, like 20 or so.

Tennis style:

Require a minimum of "6" games to be played and to win the set you need a gap of "2" games. (6-4 7-5 8-6 and so on).

Blowouts end quickly, tense close games are made the most of.

That would work, but is there a cutoff point? Could it end up going on and on until a winner emerges, or what?

It'd need some kinda tie-break at some point I suppose.

Perhaps after "x" games it goes to a first to a two frag lead.

quick question: is there any map in the cpma map pack that was made with HM in mind?cpm17 seems to work nicely, apart from situations where 1 player spawns exactly above the other.

dm6, it works for everything.

the concept is fine but having no time limit makes it not very useful for tournament play.

because you know, tennis, where it draws inspriation from has a time limit?

except that in tennis u cant hide or run away from the ball. There might be similarities between real sports and quake gametypes (hoonymode and tennis, tdm and basketball, ctf and soccer), but somethings are completely different. Most tennis points dont even last 1 minute, while a hoony mode one could easily last 5 if both players choose not to chase. There either has to be some sort of timelimit or some disadvantage over time (health/armor decay) or even prevent items for spawning after a certain amount of time or certain amount of pickups.

I think spawn system debate will never end because the formula never takes into account positional advantage, distance from nearest usable weapon, just distance from killer never going to work out, best example, the sg spawn in ztn after a fight, that spawn often ruins comebacks, if the killer is not careful enough. Also peoples opinion about spawns are rather ambiguous, some want safety after spawn, some want the player to be as hapless as possible, I honestly think its a part of the game what you choose to do right after you spawn / whether you want to delay the spawn or not, and thus no system can ever be perfect, however the player is allowed to make perfect decisions with a low probability of spawn rape.

as I mentioned earlier though (http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1806305#pid1806305), QL is a huge information gathering machine and it should be possible now to create a formula that takes into account things like nearby weapons, just based on data from past games. Every spawn system before this one has been based on the idea of creating a general rule capable of meeting design goals on every possible good map, including ones the designer has never seen.

There's no need for this in QL which is an entirely different kind of operation since it's so centralized. I agree with your point however that the goals of a potential future spawn system are not clearly defined it should be better understood what we want before we go redesigning it.

Yeah Quake 3 spawnsystem was way better, and lots of fun :)
Bring back action!

This.
Fun >>> theoretical superior or more "correct" (if at all).

???????????????????????

What if you can choose the spawn points yourself? That way you can spawn away from the opponent when he's stacked and very close by when he's low. Then, in this case, there is no luck involved, simply "knowledge" on where should I spawn in order get an advantage.

ZTN: Or would simply abuse the system? I mean, you could easily kill yourself when your low and decide to spawn at the LG to get MH and YA when you realize that your opponent just went to chase you through the teleporter!