maybe some wallhack aswell, this could help new players a lot and the cheating problem will be solved aswell!

don't forget about the aimbot because we all know aiming is pretty difficult for counter-strikers :p

lol, top cs players wipe the floor with quake players aimwise... The quake community actually has a tradition of disliking players who win thanks to aim rather than brains etc. Halo players are another story though, since there's auto-aim.

you really do believe that don't you?

Sure I do... Why would quake players be better aimers than cs players? Pretty much the only challenging thing in regards to aim in quake is the speed of the movement, that's it, and it doesn't necessarily always play such a big role since players are typically harder to hit when they strafe left and right while facing an enemy rather than go full speed in a given direction. What's your reasoning?

edit: for the record I'm only talking about aim here... not other aspects of the games.

Didnt think you were actually being serious, but wow. Do you play either game?

Even if we're just talking about hitscan, Quake is still harder. For one, the ground strafe speed in quake is faster than in cs, resulting in quicker left/right movement and making you harder to hit. This coupled with the fact that in cs (especially in 1.6) shooting while moving greatly decreases your accuracy which means that a lot of fights are between opponents standing still, so headshots arent that hard.

Also faster movement speed does have a large impact on aiming. Let's say your opponent is moving across an opening (from one side to the other) and you have a limited amount of time to shoot him before he's back behind cover. The faster his movement, the less time you will have to react and make the shot.

In Quake it is also possible to deny your opponent angles or pop him up to mess up his aim, thus forcing players to have to make a lot more aim adjustments. In CS, this entire mechanic is not possible due to the absence of projectile weapons.

Quake is way more dynamic with a lot of emphasis on having to aim on the fly, while moving around the map (at much faster speeds). Whereas in cs one team can usually just sit there watching the angles and waiting for the other team to walk into their crosshairs. It's the reason you hardly ever see flickshots in cs.

Oh and good projectile aiming and dodging is way more complicated than anything hitscan related, but I'm leaving that out b/c it would make this argument too easy.

Hell CS isnt even the hardest hitscan-centric game (that would be Natural Selection).

Sorry for the incoming long post but you have several different points so it'll be easier to read my answers if I use quotes.

Didnt think you were actually being serious, but wow. Do you play either game?

If we're talking about Q3/QL duel and CS then yes, I've been playing and following Q3 since it first came out, and playing CS since version 1.0 (roughly ten years). I have overall played much more CS than Q3 since I have thousands of hours of CS behind me.

For one, the ground strafe speed in quake is faster than in cs, resulting in quicker left/right movement and making you harder to hit.

I addressed this in my first post. I acknowledged speed as the one aim-challenging (I'll use that term for lack of a better expression...) element quake does have over cs.

This coupled with the fact that in cs (especially in 1.6) shooting while moving greatly decreases your accuracy which means that a lot of fights are between opponents standing still.

The fact that moving decreases the accuracy is precisely a penalty for bad aiming, and is therefore an aim-challenging feature. You are required to shoot to kill directly because the game will not allow you to aim accurately while running away after a missed shot. Having the same accuracy whatever your movement is means there is less incentive for immediate accurate aiming.

And thats forgetting the fact that in quake you have to make a lot of shots while moving around the map (at much faster speeds).

Again, perfect accuracy while moving is not an aim-challenging feature. I would like to add that good movement from a player will actually facilitate aiming in a lot of cases, since players will move notably according to what moving direction/trajectory allows for an easier shot at the opponent (typically to reduce the speed at which the pixels of the opponent travel through one's screen). The ability to get closer to an opponent fast (if he's not moving at the same speed in the opposite direction) also means the target will get bigger as you do so.

Also faster movement speed does have a large impact on aiming. Let's say your opponent is moving across an opening (from one side to the other) and you have a limited amount of time to shoot him before he's back behind cover. The faster his movement, the less time you will have to react and make the shot.

You are repeating your first point. Again, I already acknowledged this in my previous post.

In Quake it is also possible to deny your opponent angles or pop him up to mess up his aim, thus forcing players to have to make a lot more aim adjustments. In CS, this entire mechanic is not possible due to the absence of projectile weapons.

What exactly are grenades in CS if they're not projectile weapons? HE grenades can have the effect you're describing, but the best example is flash grenades, whose entire purpose in the game is to blind players who do not make aim adjustments to avoid them. This means that you will often have situations where a player will have to go through two 180° turns in a fraction of a second in order to face an enemy preceded by a flash grenade (you can't turn as soon as the flash grenade appears on your screen, you have to wait for the exact moment preceding its explosion to make sure your enemy doesn't pop up before the flash explodes). If you do get blinded you have to hide as best as you can to avoid getting killed while it lasts. This is a much higher degree of "aim adjustments" due to incoming projectiles than in quake 3.

Quake is way more dynamic with a lot of emphasis on having to aim on the fly. Whereas in cs one team can usually just sit there watching the angles and waiting for the other team to walk into their crosshairs.

Sooo... you mention the defending team but somehow forget to mention that the other team is attacking? The roles are often switched during rounds, as soon as the attacking team takes one of the bombsites. Also, teams VERY rarely move in packs of five in non-eco rounds. This is why cs players constantly have to check corners and be ready to aim on the fly: knowing exactly where all five members of the opposing team are is the exception rather than the rule. Meanwhile, in quake 3, good players will generally (not always) have a pretty good idea of where their (individual) opponent is/can be.

It's the reason you hardly ever see flickshots in cs.

Please tell me you're joking, because this is an ignorant comment if I ever saw one. Flickshots happen all the time in CS.

Oh and [1] learning good projectile aiming and [2] dodging is way more complicated than anything hitscan related, but I'm leaving that out b/c it would make this argument too easy.

[1] I completely disagree, I think recoil control is a LOT harder to master for the different weapons in CS than getting the hang of the speed at which rockets and plasma bolts (and grenades) travel in quake 3. There are differences in recoil control even between pros. A similar issue is the rate at which you can shoot bullets in order to stay accurate, firing patterns etc, those take a long time to master. These elements (both for q3 and cs) are however not strictly speaking included in aiming as a skill. For q3, I would call it good projectile "projection" skill coupled with a good reading of the opponent's movement patterns, rather than identify this as aiming itself.
[2] Dodging, as a skill, has to be analytically distinguished from aiming (I agree that dodging in quake 3 requires more skill, but as I said this is not what we're talking about here). Regarding aiming while dodging, though, cs is once again more challenging, since as you said it yourself in cs it is harder to shoot accurately while moving. This means that players will typically have to aim and shoot during the fraction of a second when they stop strafing in one direction and are about to start strafing in the other. This can best be achieved through a specific technique: if you're strafing left, you cannot simply stop pressing your "left" button but you have to click once on your "right" button to come to a complete stop, shoot, then press "right" again to actually strafe right. You have to be sure you are aiming correctly during the little time you are not moving, while in quake you can shoot whenever you feel like shooting and chances are you will take your shot when you'll be confident you've taken the time to aim properly (a good illustration of this is the fact that you don't see people holding the fire button down with a railgun in hand).

Now that I have answered your points I'd like to add a few of my own. It's funny that you somehow managed to fail to mention the simple fact that there are headshots in CS, meaning that you are rewarded for aiming at specific body parts (you also take less damage in the arms and in the legs than in the torso), which obviously requires better aiming skills than simply aiming at the entire model. The models are also smaller. The maps feature longer sight distances, meaning the models will appear even smaller on your screen. Another thing that CS has while Q3 duel doesn't is the possibility of multiple enemies attacking simultaneously, or at very short intervals of time, from very different directions. Not only will these situations imply a higher demand on how fast you can accurately aim at & kill your enemy (since you'll have others to take down), but you will not be able to limit your aiming to one target/direction throughout your attempt at surviving. Such situations happen all the time in cs. Yet another aim-challenging feature of CS is the fact that you can die from one bullet, or one burst, even at maximum health and armour. This puts additional pressure on the players to aim as fast as possible. In quake, the more you're stacked the more this pressure diminishes (obviously you still want to be the first one to hit the other, but the penalty for not doing so is reduced). Regarding the netcode, I've also found the quake 3 & quakelive netcodes overall much more forgiving regarding shots behind an opponent than the cs netcode (as long as people are using ex_interp 0.01, which is required in any competition).

These are only basic reasons why cs is very demanding aimwise. Like I said, I acknowledge how speed is an aim-challenging factor in quake, but it doesn't put Q3 above CS in regards to their respective demands on aim. I don't see how any of this is surprising or a big deal though, I've read here plenty of accounts - by quake players - of cs players getting high accuracies but still getting stomped because of the other skills quake requires.

edit: I do agree that it was an overstatement from my part to say cs players wipe the floor with q3 players in regards to aim, since like Nukm said both games are demanding aimwise. It was merely a hasty reply at the very ignorant initial post :p If you want I really have no problem with saying that top players from both games aim very well.

I didnt mention headshots b/c it's the part I agree with you on. No point in me arguing against myself. Yes, the "optimal target area" (or w/e you want to call it) in cs is smaller than it is in quake. The other points I mentioned (like the faster speed) are supposed to offset that.

Requiring less hits to kill doesnt really make it more skilled. It just makes it more random/luck based. In quake you have to land a lot of hits to frag someone so there's less chance for a bad aimer to defeat a good aimer. Its why most people consider instagib lame.

While grenades in cs are projectiles, they are not as frequent as spam in quake, and are used to catch players off guard rather than for area denial. But yes, aiming while navigating your way thru the spam is more of a dodging skill.

As for flashes, I dont see how doing 180s is harder than quickly adjusting your aim from a mostly unpredictable position (after getting popped up into the air, knocked off a platform, etc)

Its also a bit silly to compare a 1on1 mode to a team mode dont you think? Quake has team modes too, along with plenty occurring situations where you'll be attacked by multiple targets and forced to prioritize, etc.

Reading your opponent's movement is a huge part of ACTUAL aiming. While controlling recoil or timing shots in between moving is more about fighting against an arbitrary "realism" feature while also doing some aiming in the process. It's only there b/c without it the aiming would be far too easy.

The point about longer distances (kinda moot since quake has plenty of long range maps as well) and smaller models is hard to argue objectively. The games are just too different in that regard. CS has the realism stick up its ass and cba to give you brightskins/custom fovs/watever while Quake is more about dming without having to deal with poor visibility and other bs. That pretty much sums up my opinion on quake vs cs. Quake is more about fighting your opponent, while cs is more about fighting the engine.

That said, I also think NS has way higher aiming requirements than CS. With marines vs aliens you have to deal with tiny hitboxes + ridiculous movement speed + air control + special abilities (gas, warp, etc) but that's pretty off topic.

Whether or not less hits being needed to kill the opponent makes it more random or not is irrelevant to our debate. My point was that it is an incentive to aim as accurately and as fast as possible. This pressure is reduced the more protected you are.

The entire purpose of flash grenades is to make an area difficult to hold. They lead to aim adjustments to a higher degree than avoiding projectiles does in q3. You actually have to look at the exact opposite direction from the one your enemy is coming from before you can shoot him.

So you agree that my point about multiple targets being more aim-challenging is correct?

No, reading your opponent's movement is reading your opponent's movement. It's a skill that facilitates aiming when you're good at it but it's still analytically different from aiming.

How are longer distances and smaller models hard to argue objectively? All other things being equal, the lesser amount of pixels a target occupies on your screen, the more precise you will have to be with your aim. There's absolutely nothing subjective about this.

No, reading your opponent's movement is reading your opponent's movement. It's a skill that facilitates aiming when you're good at it but it's still analytically different from aiming.

Ever heard a term like 'rocket\plasma aim'? It obviously includes this movement reading in the same way you included faster movement and dodgind vs the minimum dodging in cs as things making aim harder, and unlike the 'engine fighting' features in cs Toin Coss mentioned, it also means that the rocket accuracy in the account of your favourite fnatic player doesn't mean shit unless its against top players.

What do you do when you fire a rocket ahead of the opponent's trajectory?
1. You calculate where you think the opponent's going to be by the time the rocket/plasma bolt gets there.
2. You point your weapon at that position (and press fire).

The process described in 1. is not aiming, while 2. is aiming. The fact that they go together doesn't change that they're still analytically different...

I'm not the one who brought up the statistics of the fnatic players in quakelive. Anyway, you guys are making such a big deal of this, get over it already...

And yet everybody includes it into the aim category because it's what makes you where you aim with projectile weapons, and thus it's a skill you cannot ignore in this kind of argument.

Yes I can, since we're talking about aiming and what you're referring to is not aiming like I just explained. If you disagree then address what I wrote in my post. I have repeatedly said that I was not arguing about the other skills quake requires.

What can I say, air trajectory prediction, movement prediction and aiming movement are all included in a usual 'strenx has a good LG' statement and are commonly considered parts of the aiming skill, even if they are not.

PS. To add some, in quake you actually change postitions all the time and shoot while strafing through the map and thus quite often do not have the luxury of a cs\dm6-rail position-TDM\any other campy postition player's time any other to fully adjust to the spot and number of pixels to shoot the available exits, that alone is about as big as the 'CS has 5 times more enemies to aim at' even in Duel and I'm not talking about the situation where you bring more players in, TDM.

I'll gladly acknowledge that quake is more demanding in regards to movement calculation/projection if it makes you happy :D I never said the opposite...

My point is that if you add it to the AIM category, it makes the statement 'CS players have a better aim' quite silly.

I know that's your point, but I've shown why it's inaccurate to do so... you said it yourself when you wrote "even if they are not". Do you agree to leave it at "players from both games aim well"?

you said it yourself when you wrote "even if they are not"

Good thing you pointed that out, for now I can say that I'm sorry for the misunderstanding, but I only intended to write that they're not a part of the 2D aiming you speak of, becks explained my opinion on this matter better than I did with the real life example.
Now, I can't stop you if you want to quit the argument with a conclusion like "players from both games aim well" because it in no way contradicts with my opinion that aiming in quake is harder, even if less important, but if you want to prove the opinion wrong I'll reply, at least until I'm too lazy to.

It's as corny as an expression can get but I guess we can only agree to disagree then :p

hahahaha

wow, you're taking out the hard part of aiming (the one that cs doesn't have) and saying "it doesn't count"... way to go :)

oh also:

the recoil compensation in cs is not part of aiming

I explained why it was analytically different from aiming itself. It doesn't mean it's not a skill in its own right.

edit: and you're right, recoil compensation is strictly speaking not part of aiming either, I said so myself earlier on.

1. You calculate where you think the opponent's going to be by the time the rocket/plasma bolt gets there.
2. You point your weapon at that position (and press fire).

The process described in 1. is not aiming, while 2. is aiming. The fact that they go together doesn't change that they're still analytically different...

eh?

aiming is not a term that was invented by computer games.
And as you probably know nothing in the world is "instant". In fact, every ranged weapon has or is a projectile and a moving target needs to be predicted.

Firing rockets so they hit is aiming.

You did not address the distinction I made in the post you quoted. I can have both hands in my pockets and use my brain to think "mmh, I would have to fire a projectile at this distance ahead of the guy to hit him". There is no aiming involved in that mental calculation. The part where I direct my weapon at that point in space (to shoot) is the aiming part.

In my book, as soon as you make that prediction intuitively it is aiming.

rofl thats retarded

it's like saying that writing a story or music is all about putting ink on paper, and the thinking part is something else entirely

I won't get sucked in inaccurate analogies. There is no way you can possibly argue that
1. calculating the position of a given object at a given time
2. aiming a weapon at the position you have just calculated
are the same thing.
Are they both part of trying to shoot your opponent down? Yes. Are they the same thing, no matter how fast they' are done in conjunction (this is to becks)? No.
Are you "aiming" when you're asked in a math test if two trains on intersecting tracks are going to collide? Or when you're asked where the intersection should have been for the two trains to collide?

The calculation is a part of aiming. Even projectile aimbots have to calculate.

So what is your definition of aiming? Just moving the crosshair? Say for example if I were to wait for the opponent to strafe into my crosshair before pressing fire at the right moment, would that not be considered aiming?

Even if you're just using hitscan you still have to calculate/guess a bit to make up for the 150+ms of human reaction lag. Unless you're only shooting at stand still targets (lol cs) your "aiming" would be completely useless w/o the calculation.

Can you at least once address what I said in my post when replying to it? Do you consider 1. and 2. to be the same thing, yes or no? And answer the last two questions. The calculation is part of shooting your opponent down, but I just explained why it had to be distinguished from aiming. Of course projectile aimbots have to calculate, I never said the opposite.

to me aiming in the way we discuss here is the process of putting a weapon in the correct position to hit a target.

an aimbot for example does both, and i don't think anyone would want to call it an aim-and-prediction-bot.

/e
since you asked for it in your other post. To me 1. and 2. are obviously not the same but are both part of aiming.

The relevant definition of "to aim" according to the Collins dictionary is "to point (a weapon, missile, etc.) [...] at a particular person or object". So it's like I said, first you calculate the point in space where your opponent is likely to be passing, then you point your weapon (aim) at that point in space (I use "first" and "then" but like you said this is obviously done almost instantly). You're not aiming at the opponent otherwise your rocket would end up "behind" him by the time it got there, you're aiming at the point in space you previously calculated, ahead of him. That you're doing this to actually hit the guy is irrelevant to the definition.

The way you guys are using the term "aiming" prevents you from making the distinction between "aiming at the opponent" and "aiming at the place the opponent is going to be". You're not aiming at the opponent with projectile weapons, you're aiming at a point in space where the opponent is supposedly going to be by the time your projectile gets to it according to your calculations.

That you figured out that point in space thanks to your calculations or because the spaghetti monster told you this was where the opponent was going to be is not relevant to the action of pointing your weapon (aiming) at it.

I'm actually not convinced that the authors of the dictionaries had your distinction in mind when they wrote their definition.
I mean they are stating that aiming is pointing at a target. However, in your version you don't really point at a target as long as there is movement, but somewhere else. They didn't write anything about that either!

So, looking at it literally, both our definition are wrong and the authors will never hit a moving target.


And that, I think, is pretty much all we're going to get out of this discussion.

Yeah I agree that we're kind of running in circles :p I'll just sum up my position.

To me aiming refers to the act of pointing a weapon (through the use of the crosshair in games) at a point in space (or more generally at a model, an object...).

The point in space I'm typically aiming at with hitscan weapons is the space occupied by the enemy model.
The point in space I'm typically aiming at with projectile weapons is the one that I believe will be occupied by the enemy model by the time my projectile reaches the said point in space. I did not come up with the said point in space by the process of aiming but by the different process of calculating the future position of my opponent's model. I then proceeded to aim at that point in space. These two separate operations are therefore directly linked, but still analytically separate. Calculating the enemy model's future position accurately is a skill in itself and quake is much more demanding than cs in that respect.

That's as clear as I can be I think. I'll repeat what I said to someone else, if anyone disagrees with what I just wrote then we'll just have to agree to disagree :)

It seems like you're trying to argue a theoretical turn-based system, instead of actually trying to argue aiming in Quake/CS. Aiming IS calculation, and done at every point in time until you actually press the fire button.

You speak about inaccurate analogies, and then make one.

LOL

yeah cs players have the best aim in the world

...provided the opponent is standing still and/or crouching

This.

wat

hahahahaahhaha, :)))))))))DDDD
[ + ]
plus'd

You talk the talk but you don't walk the walk! :)
edit: ahah :p

so explain to me the fact that i can make ace's in counter-strike even tho i don't know the maps... i have to rely solely on aim, and i can frag o:

rofl you're an idiot.
put a top q3 player in cs and he will have pro level aim instantly. see fatal1ty and wombat.
put a cs player in q3 and his aim will be worse than vedic's.

you are both idiots. obviously at pro level both games need good aim but that means a different (partly overlapping) skillset in each game. still the good player will also be able to aim well in the other game after some time... how can you even discuss this again and again?

nope. quake 3 requires more skill in every aspect compared to cs.
again, put a q3 pro in any fps and he will do well. put a cs pro in any other game and he sucks.

he won't suck when it comes to hitscan aiming.

How many examples of cs pros trying to compete in international tournaments in other games do you have? I can only think of one, burnie who competed in UT2K4, and he happened to win the ESWC. This debate is irrelevant though, like becks pointed out.

wouldnt be known if someone switched games and was too horrible to compete

not that i support this retarded argument in either way anyways

THis

Fatal1ty was fucking dire at CS and just so you guys know (I feel it must be pointed out here) but the fnatic CS1.6 team actually play QuakeLive and have accounts you could search up if you fancied. In fact, many of us from ESR (including myself) have played with them in CTF pickups. Whilst we're at it, f0rest (consider by many to be one of the best CS players to date) started out playing RA3 and VQ3 and cArn played/plays QW (as for the rest of the fnatic team I dunno). Plenty other of the CS top players play QL, and they're no tier 2 ffa 12% spacktards either

If you're actually interested more in this (doubtful though :D) then search up some of the fnatic Quake player's friends list and you'll find some of the CS players. I just had a quick gander at one of them and found his LG acc was 36%, rail 47% and BFG 100% (FUCK. YES.)


edit: what I'm trying to say here is (though it's funny to continue the hate on CS), they're just two very different games. It's like comparing apples to oranges, but to say that one is less skillful aim-wise is a bit ignorant.

f0rest (consider by many to be one of the best CS players to date) started out playing RA3 and VQ3

way to disprove the Q3 players are > all theory :D

Yeah when I mentioned he played RA3 I was expecting lolz but I guess it just disproves they can't aim with projectiles ._o

I played the q3 demo before I started cs but I'm still more of a cs player than a q3 player :p

so, in conclusion, cs is bad.

So what you're saying is 2 ex quake players are now top cs players?

http://esreality.hexus.net/?a=users&user_id=24948

Q3 player in Q3, too.

If I could be bothered I could find some top swedish CS player saying 'I don't play quake because I don't have the aim'.

Bullshit, they always have an amazing rail but it takes them just as much time as anyone else to figure out the projectile weapons.

do your parents know u re mentally handicapped?

(i think i got trolled again :<)

Strafing is a bit hard too, so let's just have beginners move at 10x the ups with normal jumping.

/ban for opp
/end

this is a good idea so everyone will hate it

i believe you because you have more pluses than the evil guys. :)

This is a bad idea, and I have more plusses.

you only have a quarter of plus more than i do. and my dick is twice the size of yours.

5% more plusses, so 5% bigger dick.

if u want to make it more noob friendly add defrag-like hud, which shows angels for strafe-jumping ofc only for practice matches

good idea too!

seems to be a popular idea. =)

why do you think it's not good? in my imagination its great. :)

your "arguments" are not valid.

in tdm i already can see my teammates through walls by means of those yellow triangles. in ut i can see if my enemy has this golden belt. in cod you even get shown were grenades are.

try to formulate valid arguments if you want to say something. otherwise this makes no sense...

How do you imagine it? Perfect timing for the guy in control, and nothing for the underdog? The winner will just run items and win without any competition. Furthermore, what is he supposed to do when dropped into tier 3 without any timing experience?

There are other, better ways to make the game more newbie friendly. Like duel detective that works like the sc matchmaking one, built in PUG system, possibly with chat, etc. There's so much more, but id would've done it a long time ago if they cared enough, and obviously, they don't. Not enough times have they seen games fail because of being not ready at release, and yes, the open beta was basically a release considering they'll only drop the tag years after, when the game's already dead.

ah i guess you are right with the item timer and the guy in control just running the items. then maybe extent this idea to item pickups heared by the player? still bad?

edit: make it only show the time in 5 second steps. so there is still some timing skill left. =)

btw: anyone know where that analyzer guy is? programming OSP?

sign up with your address then fatal1ty comes round your house and plays for you

you win. you learn. problem solved

As long as Console FPS games like Halo and MW2 exist, as well as MMO's like WoW, nothing can be done to get new players.

Excuses now, eh?

quake isnt something that u can get good after a week

console fps and other shitz re for nolifers with no ballz and it should be kept this way

let them play those trash games that require no skill glhf

Hahah man this is nice! I like it !

laberkopp

quakelive easy already, what problem? is for casual 360 gamer, not true q3 player.

no matter how much bashing is done, this is actually a good idea to get new players, enabling or disabling this via skill tier would be impossible to implement though, cause retarded people who have been playing quake for 10+ years will make fresh accounts everyday to get these features and derive sadistic pleasure.

i think the skilltiers should be choosable, like server settings, and skillmatching should take place nonetheless. This way everything stays the same plus you have 2 more servertypes to practice. and i think those matches should be unranked.

how about quakelive gets new content so it's interesting to play so people actually play it so more people start to play it so everybody got someone to play with so they get better by experience so they just learn how to play like everyone else did?

sorry, too simple, not good for business.

they don't need to learn it like everyone else did when we can make the learning better.

they don't need to learn it because the game is currently a dead end with no real future in sight, competitive or casual.

you got me here ;)

well, i started out in the low skill duel servers 9 months ago, and the pretty thing is: everybody brings totally different skills to his game

i already had an idea how to aim, i already had an idea how to strafejump, that made me progress into tier 2, i really had no idea how to navigate through the maps and i had to learn dm6 for some weeks, when i was halfway accomodated there, i went over to ztn, knowing that these two are the most played maps

then some one came on the server and beat me hard, i didn't know why and he told me that duelling is about the items and that they are an important factor in the winning business

so this blew my mind, i thought you'd just run around randomly take items when they are there or not and randomly bump into my opponent

slowly with this knowledge i succeeded in the tactics department, watched 2gd vods and progressed into tier 3, where everyone outaims me and calls me lucky after my technical wins


if you are new to quake, find practice partners in your skill league and ones that are harder to crack, find nice persons who teach you something valuable, players on low skill tiers are skillmatched to each other and some have an idea how to duel (maybe according to vods), others have to learn how to use weapons, if they manage to see what could give them the edge over their opponents they will progress 'naturally', the only thing that i could agree with in OP's post is a visualisation of your opponents health, thats still hard to do for me on most of the maps (i won't go into details)


tldr
the diversified skillsets especially in lower ranked servers lead me to believe that natural progression would work faster than playing with technical assistance. if you are a bit serious/competitive about it, you'd look for things that'd give you an edge over your opponent

btw: the so-called wall hack ain't a substitution to a skill imho, due to the spammy/loud nature of teamgames and the lack of the sound engine/team overlay to cope with that it is a nice addition that allows for improvements in team games, also it doesn't give you an unfair advantage over your opponent, but it is a positive factor in team play

you think its a good idea then?

No body thinks it's a good idea. To make the game more 'noob friendly' they could add more training maps to teach timings etc, as i'm sure some people don't know how item spawning works. It would harm the game more than help to dumb it down.

you have missed the part with the skill tiers. its not a dumping down, its an addition...

althought your suggestion is absurd ID will think about it for sure!
ID likes absurd/questionable suggestions xD

My ridiculos suggestion: I want a spraying cock for ingame chat so we dont need to type in "im spraying cum everywhere"
sth like this: B====D ~~

My serious suggestion: give us another q3 pointrelease so the hardcore community will play q3 and the noobs will play ql.
=> hardcore community wont whine for maps, gtv, private servers and so on anymore & who cares about the rest. Ql was just a testing project. Its not a serious competion game and it wont ever be

how absurd are tiered hitsounds for you?

what do you mean by "tiered hitsounds"?

there is cg_hitbeep 2 already

My ridiculos suggestion: I want a spraying cock for ingame chat so we dont need to type in "im spraying cum everywhere" and gtv

[+] u because i like to sitt on gtv with fake nicks

How much more noob-friendly can it get? How about making it more skillful so its entertaining to watch/play?

no problem with that. it doesn't coincide with making it more noob friendly, which this thread should be about...

"novice duel" similar to novice maps in starcraft

with item timers

I don't care, they could even give aimbots and wallhack to the beginners
but I would not recommend timers for the beginners, because this way they will just learn to watch for the timers and once they will advance and the timers will be off they will be clueless

the best way to time items is by instinct, imo, not by calculating, because if you know that RA and MG has to come in the next 5-10 seconds, you prepare for it, while if you know the exact time for it you may get involved in too much fighting and lose it, it happens a lot at pro level, exactly because too much confidence; on the other hand if you go by instinct you know now I've picked up MH, not I have about 10 seconds to chase my opponent or go for the YA, and then do the RA (+ a few seconds delay)-MH combo, in this order, and you are always a bit worried to not fuck timing up, which worry is a good thing because it keeps you alerted and is making you appear a bit sooner for the item, to your advantage
I've seen a lot of bad timing at pro level, and most pro players calculate the times by the clock, even at pro level there are I'd say 3-4 pros only who time properly most of the time on all maps: rapha, cooller, cypher (I'd say he only time properly 75% of the time, having the tendency to delay the items too much at the point he lose them, boy this is happening to him so often, and his timing is usually so and so on t7) and spart1e time very good at his best, too. While other players timing is good on some maps only: av3k (ztn), stermy (dm6 and t7), noctis (anything excepting the maps he doesn't like, dm6 ftw xD), all these time very good as well when they are at their top, else their timing is bit problematic somewhere around 20-30% the cases -enough at that level for the other guy to wint the match, due to better timing that match, a bit of luck or effectively playing better overall that match

short sentence: imo showing up timings is a very bad idea in the long term

I think that this is a very good idea to make QL more accessible for beginners. There's a lot to pick up at the same time, movement, aim, weapon depending on situation, using positional advantage and of course item timings.

Helping with one of these makes the list shorter at least. And it takes a lot of time to pick up the ability to time items well by instinct or calculating.

How about god mode for noobs?

that's too much i guess :D
500 both hp and armor will do the work : )

i think they should make quake live more noob friendly OR not.

remove the timer.