semi-competative

:DD

Has anyone got an invite yet?

some quick info

- $25
- Map editor included
- Dedicated servers
- Integrated scripting tool for creating new modes
- LAN servers (offline mode)
- Matchmaking
- Stats
- Ranking system
- Spectator mode
- Movie-making mode

But I want to hate it because of the stupid name. So conflicted.

but does it blend?

Doesn't matter how much goodies it has when gameplay is crap to say the least.

I'll stay quaker even tho some particular people in this community can't even upload a demo once a week (it's not their job i heard), but they sure like to mention how they help community by doing things that benefit them. But gameplay is great you should check it out.

shut the fuck up already!

Hahaha, UPLOAD ALREADY!

so basicily it has everything quake is missing WAKE UP ID

agreed. what the flying fuck is ID thinking... so so long, and who are they making updates for? the idiots that lap up endless wankey gametypes and play quake once a week for 4 weeks.
racist ID can't play their own game.

id is busy making Doom 3 with virtual reality and a clown ass helmet prototype made by John Carmack.

so it wont be free? or what

Haleluja

First impression:
I hope it's more fun to play than it is to watch.

Well - I quite enjoyed watching Winz own Strenx (or Strenix as the french pronounce it), but apart from that it bored me and i didn't bother to finish watching it

lets try this.

A perfect game for the average low level / lazy brain gamers of 2012
No doubt it will have lot of success.

so pure they even removed the weapons.

The new LoL of FPS has come.

edit: It's still mind boggling how a game called SHOOTMANIA can be popular.

I know it's a reference to their trackmania game, but still... shootmania? Really?

like Quake is a kick ass name.. sounds like a duck.

no, it sounds like a massive QUAKE and is exactly what goes on in my mind when i reign rockets and thunderbolts of lightning on my enemies...

(and the occasional rail).

http://download.ultradownloads.com.br/wallpap...0x1200.jpg

i even feel badass when i only say quake a more manly name is not possible

quake has kind of semi assumed a kind of classiness as a name though.
I wonder how the name chess came about or tennis and how silly they sounded ten years down the line.

"Tennis" comes from the French word "Tenez!" (Imperative of tenir) essentially "Catch that!"

the original word for "chess", is chaturanga, 4 members of an army- elephants, horses, chariots, and foot soldiers.

key to a good name is grounding and simplicity.
shoot. ok
mania? no im not a fucking sugar buzzing child.
shootmania. [puke]

I have been sent the following top secret memo from a Nadeo developer informing Ubisoft execs of the new project they have in mind:

From: Hafnt A. Clew
Sent: 29 May 2012 12:11
To: UbiSoftInDaHead Senior Management Team
Subject: Effin Ace New Game Idea

Hi Guys

We had a brainstorming session yesterday at Hooters - it was grreat! Anyway we came up with some briliant ideas, the best of which I want to share with you immediately. We're gonna revitalise that ancient franchise Chess!

To do this all we have to do is:

1. Reduce the pieces to only 2 types: King and 1 other.
2. Make the other piece just pawns so players don't have to understand complex movement dynamics.
3. Reduce the number of squares so it is easier to visualise the game.
4. Make it so the King can't move so players don't have to chase and trap it - that would be too dificult.

All this will make it easy for newbs to play and we will get millions of new players and it will be the best game ever!

Hey! We'll call it Chessmania - kewl :D

Will call shortly to iron out the details.

Regards

Hafnt A. Clew
Lead Game Designer

I expect it will be available for beta testing shortly - can't wait!

:D

Yeah, 'Shootmania' is a bad name. 'Fragmania' would have been much better.

and the trolls will then say fagmania ...

shootmania is good

"and the trolls will then say fagmania ...

shitmania is good"

Fixed that for ya - no need to thank me - its all part of the service ;)

oh thanks as I'd never consider shitmania...

in this regard a name there shot or shoot is in is never really good ...
I know a guy who was called headshot ... by accident in a heated discussion one guy called him headshit by accident because the letter i is next to o, he even apologized for that ... but from then on people who wanted to be evil called him like this ... :-)

hahahaha
and from that day forward headshot was no longer the coolest nickname around

I watched game with teams of strenx and winz, it seems to be pretty boring. Anyway it's better than any CoD-like games.

looks cheap D:

any good gameplay videos? only watched the e3 trailer and that one was meh

seems pretty boring :\ but yeah as someone said before, since this game is so lame and has no point of existing, this can be some fps lol :\ i hope it wont be

I really hope so! I don't like shootmania (as they buy quake players) but if a fpfps goes #1 biggest eSport, then a future quake (or quake clone), with features designed to competition, will easily give shootmania some troubles in the market share.

People don't realize that LoL actually has more spectators than SC2 in general.

Maybe SM suck, but it shares the genre of quake. All of us know that quake is the superior eSport and if an fpfps title grows super big in respect and acceptance, quake will too.

You can compare today's games with gateway drugs. Mainstream shit shooters are the tobacco and quake is the cocaine, but there is no pot. In order to go from tobacco to cocaine, commonly you try pot first. SM might be the pot and also a gateway connected between the casual players to this date and the old-fashioned, skillbased FPS

Militia is supposed to be like crack!!

Never heard of that, if you are not referring to the armed peasants in wc3

Now don't tell me you're one of those who hasn't tried militia yet?

Won't do

Me neither.

Actually, maybe there's no need for any future Quake, I hope that SM will just get more people to know about QL, realize that it's 1000x better, and switch to it.

That would be more convenient, yes. But for that to happen, id must stop dictate the community and instead add LAN support + custom content support. :/

kind of a nice comparison, but I still think u do too much drugs

Lol. I barely drink and have never ever tried a single tobacco death stick. That doesn't mean I don't know the facts.

you're 17 and you know jack shit about anything :C but it's ok, everyone grows up after a while.

Playing the mature card, eh? Who said I'm 17. What makes you think I'm not a fraud. You don't know me!

using words and phrases like "death stick" and "knowing the facts", while believing in the most idiotic anti-drug message there is... maybe?

and you're dutch.

In order to go from tobacco to cocaine, commonly you try pot first.

no, just no. you really do not do that.

I didn't say you have to do coke after pot...

yea, and where did i say that? you referred to pot as a gateway to chemical drugs, which is absurd to be honest.

from what i experienced over the years almost the opposite would probably be true, but whatever floats your boat, just don't go near the cancer sticks!!!!1

You´re silly :s

lol - can't believe we both made the Gateway analogy in 2 different threads haha :D

There's no such thing as a gateway drug.

In theory

but some drugs make you hang out with gateway people

really not sure if i want this to be a success. we need something a bit different to have a big fps title again but it just looks kinda lame.

I predict that this game will die after the handful of pros compete in all 3 tournaments for it. Brink deja-vu all over again: community hypes up a shit game only to see it die after 1 month. Doesn't take a genius to see this. This looks like one of the games you get from the bargain bin for 5 euros

ehh, I think I'll wait and see on this one

why is this major?

This looks like a cool game, but like a joke compared to Quake in terms of competitive gaming.

It’s based on skill

LOL

looks awesome, many cash tournaments, pew pew pew

If we want a competitive FPS to even exist in the future we perhaps need to change perspective on what we want. There's not going to be another Quake that'll blow a fresh wind into the community. We need something new, Shootmania might be it - who knows?

If what the developers says are true: that the game will be formed by the community through mods and such I think we can have a great game here.

I think he gameplay simplifications may work in getting fresh blood into the game, but what convinces me the least is the spectator value of this game. From what I've seen, it's unexciting action with a beaten to death graphic look, and seem to promote a team mode which is harder to spectate.

Tribes looks 100x better than this.

and tribes is utter shit so that just sums it up

Game looks boring as hell tbh, sorta hope it fails. I think the Brink comparison a few comments up was good, and I kinda wish it turns out that way.

why it is laser only?

actually it has 2 weapons, rocketgun and railgun.

Oh, not one, TWO guns? Gotta start playing esdf to bind all those keys

Exactly for this reason they have made it so the weapons change automatically depending on which platform you are standing on. Just how awesome is that, ey?!

Railgun? OK i'm in

AWESOME! =D

I'm starting to read it shitstorm mania D: signed up!

whats the minimum system requirement to play this ?

1 hand, 2 fingers and half a brain. But ideally you'll need 3 fingers if you want to get the most out of it.

LOLOLOLOL

We have a potential customer

ouch gg

Mocking the disabled -- clever.
Mocking a specific disabled person, by posting his photo -- even more clever!

(NOT, ya dickhead)

time will tell. ive seen some serious support from quake pros for this game, but 25 dollars is just 20 dollars more than i would pay for it. tf2/tribes/warsow is still free, and they kick ass.

serious support greed
Notice that no one of them ever said that it's a good game.

Yes - I noticed that too. None saying its bad (because they received payments for showcasing the game), but none going so far as saying it is a great game.

But they are Pro so there's nothing wrong with that, its not greedy for any professional to try to make money out of a new product...

You guys first need to read, that they showed us ONE MODE. Maybe other modes will have some sort of armors, some sort of different/closed maps and other weapons (I am sure full version of game will have more weapons..)

Yes - but the worrying thing is that they have released this as the very best example of their game in order to advertise and build up hype for the game... so they clearly thought this was what players wanted. Such a misjudgement is worrying. Of course they might include items, closed maps and more weapons, but then it will just be the same as any other FPS...

actually, instagib clan arena is what people want today.

instagib anything is utter shit :(

you dont say

Is isnt, i find it very good to practice rail, mainly with InstaCTF.

Such a misjudgement is worrying.

ESR is only a very very tiny part of all possible players that could buy the game. Also ask yourself: does watching a pre-beta trailer on game XY turn people into experts of game XY?
I know it is a bad thing to say on ESR but did you ever consider that people vary in personal taste in such a way that to them quake (live) gameplay doesn't look like the most exciting thing in video gaming?

Yes ESR does represent only a portion of all those that might by the game, but buying the game and playing it as an e-sport FPS which is what it is being marketed as is very different and I think ESR might be quite a significant representative of the FPS e-sports community. Alot of the criticisms are concerning whether this can become a long term competitive e-sports franchise.

Long term: does it have enough depth and challenge to keep players playing for years?

From what I've seen so far: No - but I'd like to be wrong.

Competitive: does it allow for skill development i.e. is in game performance directly reflective of skill or is this curtailed to cater for less skilled players?

Lack of advanced movement, no weapon selection, items or similar meta-game components suggest: No - but I'd like to be wrong.

I aksed myself if watching a pre-beta LAN Tournament played by pro FPS players such as Strenx etc made me an expert in the game Shootmania...

Answer: as much of an expert as anyone else that's seen it and more than you who appears to have only seen the trailer, but not as much as the players who took part.

And I'm happy for people to have varying personal gaming tastes, just as I'm happy to express mine here :D

Peace baby

Why do you think that I've only watched the trailer?

This:
"Also ask yourself: does watching a pre-beta trailer on game XY turn people into experts of game XY?"

I thought if you were aware that there was more for people to base their judgements on than the trailer then the above sentence would have been a prime place to mention it.

In fact, the first place we made the game available was in an open tournament at the Gamers Assembly in France. Our goal was also to bring the gamers a FPS where they can still play with their friends but be skilled as well. Top 2 teams of the tournament included players such as Winz, Raoul, Strenx, HarTs and MoMaN, who are competitive people.

And I think it is good for expert players to be able to have a greater amount of less experts ones to be around and to watch. The competitive modes we showed are slower than some others, but that's also good for the spectator and is truly common in general sports/eSport. As a player, you still have to concentrate at maximum, but the visible action is more calm, so you can watch it longer as well in my opinion.

Anyway, it is good to see that you are at least looking at it and wish you to make misjudgement of misjudgement ^_^

Hylis

Welcome back on ESR!

Got a few spare alpha keys for us? :p

Wow, I'm quite surprised to see you here. :)

Well time will tell on the misjudgement. As I mentioned in other posts I would like my first impressions to be wrong because we would all like a new FPS game to come along and be the next big thing. And alot of people have highlighted the really good aspects of the game:

1. Mapmaking.
2. Moviemaking
3. Spectator enhancements
4. Anti-spam (5 shot gun freeze)

As ID has discovered a game has to be accessible to new players who don't want to be raped, have to learn how to time multiple item respawn times in their heads and be able to switch between 7 or 8 weapons on their keyboard at high speed whilst learning how to circle and strafe jump.

I understand that and that is the challenge for any FPS that wants to build a large player base, but once you get them playing you need to keep them interested and if you remove too much of what makes FPS games challenging, you remove the interest.

Deciding what weapon to select in a given situation is a key aspect of an FPS game and as far as I can tell that has largely been removed in Shootmania. Complex game architecture also makes games challenging and interesting, but the maps so far are very simple, but hopefully the mapmaking will change this. Again however with more complex maps, advanced movement is more rewarding, but I think I'm correct in saying that is also not present in Shootmania. Health and armor etc of course also add interest to the game.

But of course all those features would mean that some players would become much better than newer players and therefore defeat the origninal intention to make it accessible to new and more skilled players alike.

That is the problem but I think the Shootmania approach is mistaken. Instead of removing those features, make them easier.

Just some quick examples:

1) Have no more than 5 guns and make it so these are selectable by the player as they choose.
2) Start with all the guns like in QL CA.
3) Make some sort of advance movement like strafe jumping possible, but easier to do, so new players can learn it quickly.

Just those 3 things alone would make things alot better I think, but bear in mind I have never played the game, and can only go on has been shown so far. If I get a beta key and it truns out to be great, I will be just as vocal supporting it after that.

GL - I hope you make it work.

Even the map making depends a lot on the game mechanics.
In Quake, the flow of the map gets defined by the items and the geometry is influenced by the different weapons and the way they work. The actualy point of having multiple weapons is to give some of them advantage in an environment with a certain geometry (e.g. weapons with splash damage are favored in tight areas with even height; hitscan weapons having an advantage when it comes to fighting between different levels).
With simplifying the game too much and taking away too much the editor can be as simple and awesome as possible but map making will barely have a point because anything that isn't a plain flat yard without cover will do.

Yep, the game is clearly a direct descended of a racing game, which is why the map editor in the screenshot is basically a terrain editor.

That would explain alot about the look of the game...

I do think FPS needs some closed rooms to be called 'pure' or to compete with other 'pure' FPS. This kind of simplistic race-to-the-flag, don't deal with complicated map geometry, game certainly has potential, like Tribes, and it might be fun, but it can't really provide the depth of the gameplay we see on ztn. But it's okey, if it promotes competitive gaming in general and provides an alternative to 'realistic' games.

Good to see a start of a debate.

Keep in mind that I played a lot of Quake and loved it off course. This is a great game and it derserves the crown for more than a decade. But like for some other games, support and community customisation could have made some good for it, but that's another topic.

I feel important to say it because you need to understand that I think I know the positive aspects of Quake. But my goal is to reach the positive effects without having the negative ones.

Switching from weapon add deepness to the action you can make at a time, and this is positive. Now, if you can have a deep weapon without switching, I think it is better because you have the positive aspect and will avoid the negative ones.

For example, the rocket launched has a management of ammo that I find deeper. You can have up to 4 rockets and launch them quickly, but they will take time to reload. So, you have to manage this and the pattern you can create are a little more deep than we a regular minimal pace imposed in my oppinion. You have to hide yourself potentially more and get out with a different attack with the same weapon. It is also deeper to try to guess what is the state of the loading status of your opponent.

We made TrackMania with 4 arrows and it became the top online racing game, and in eSport as well with ESWC, WCG, ESL Pro Series and the community events off course, even more popular. From there, I was ok to believe that deepness can be achieved with simplicity.

As for moving, we are kind of used to the topic according to what I just said and I think we made deepness in the move. It is not the trick of the physic engine that Ahfeel from defrag explained us. It is physic included in the move in order to provide deepness without the negative effects, as much as I can predict. Because like TrackMania, even one year after, the players where playing it more deeply and with a different way that at the start.

For example, when you jump, you can keep the jump pressed so you use a stamina energy to move faster. It reacts like a air cushion and the gain you get depends on the altitude you have at that moment. After, you get a momentum and take a little time to lose it. You can optimise the lost of this momentum in taking better trajectory on the ground or avoiding to put your feet in some places. So, this is an answer to your #3.

I think you still have to discover the impact of the ground making you switch of weapon and how it brings also choices and deepness into action. Do you go on the laser (our rail) platform?

In fact, it enables to have also weapons that are unbalanced since this only make a more strategic point than another to go. But the move changes and the visibility somehow, since you are limited to a certain area with it. So, it makes the use of the map potentially with more diversity.

And diversity is a key word for long play. This is why I have ask to put the ending frame on the trailer, where we explain that Maps, Modes, Ladders, Servers, Videos etc. can be made by gamers (they replaced it with players ^_^)

And I don't say we are doing a better job at all. I am just explaining how we are trying to. But look, I think that the energy of the gamers is just too big to be ignored, and this is why, again, that support and customisation are keys. The third one is the community positive and constructive spirit in my oppinion. And on that, I am doing my best, but it is difficult with people that want to frraaaaagggg ^_^

Cheers
Hylis

I do like the sound of the rocket launcher reload pattern - I think that sounds like a good idea, but it would still be a good idea and work just as well if you could switch weapons.

So really, the key to the weapon approach you have adopted is whether the "weapon area" feature works... As this seems so alien to me I find it hard to imagine how that would play, so until I can try it out it is hard to say that it works. It would have to be really fantastically good however since it removes the weapon selection aspect of the game which to me seems like a really big thing.

The stamina boost jumping you describe sounds interesting but of course until I try it is hard to imagine, but I note that you talk alot about altitude and from the games that I've seen there were alot of high arcing jumps which make me wonder if the movement physics will lend themselves to more closed off maps or whether it will only work well in wide open maps like the ones so far.

Leaving aside talk of armour/health items, I think the "weapon area" aspect of the game seems like the most novel and controversial - it is difficult for me to imagine, but it feels like the strangest and riskiest feature.

Anyway, I look forward to trying it out and possibly being proved wrong ;D

And thanks for taking the time to discuss these things, its refreshing and something we don't get enough of (hint hint ID Software).

Your welcome, and be sure that it is often positive for me as well. As long as it is a debate, it makes an opening for getting deeper.

Be sure that if all the success of the game would be one the balance of switch weapon or not, I think we can code it and deliver in 2 hours. So, I am far from afraid of this choice. I just hope we can succeed without it, because I think it can be even better for more people, more pure skill players and more spectators.

The most common mistake made by experts in my opinion is to make the game more difficult to use and with higher gap between expert and beginners. The goal is to always have an increasing gap, off course, but the goal is to make this gap to widen slowly and without steps that are too high, like if you would like to have stair that is more vertical because you are taller.

See you in the alpha I suppose if a moderator/admin jumps in from ESR.

I just read the thing about the rockets. I played Doom 3 which essentially had this rocket-reload thing in it, and I did not like it at all. You are right, that it adds a certain strategic element to the game, but what I saw in doom 3, was that it just made the game more deffensive which does not help for spectators.

There are other points of the game, which I don't like in theory, but nonetheless im gona try the game out first. But I did not recieve my beta-key yet. Can't you make some kind of registration-code when you register for beta (or alpha or whatever). So when you insert "imfromesrandimgonatrythisgamenow" you gona get the key immediatelly? :D

build a linux client as well :)

When you get rid of the "negatives", you start to get rid of the whole aspect of skill. There SHOULD be a negative effect for using the wrong gun in a certain situation. Making the skill ceiling lower won't create an eSport FPS game. You need to allow people to easily get into, yes, but if the competitive players have nowhere to grow, there's simply no point.

Also, the last thing you want to tell competitive FPS gamers, especially Quake players, is that you made your other successful racing game with 4 keys. Congrats. That's a racing game. You think you can just "dumb" down a FPS game to something so simple and think you have an eSport title?

The only positives I feel out of Shootmania is I truly HOPE the modding community is allowed almost complete and utter free reign in ALL aspects of the game. 2 weapons for an eSport? Lordy.

has Carmack ever posted on this site? has Syncerror been open about QL's development, or about anything really?

Not once. That alone makes Shootmania's developers a lot better than them regarding community involvement, Take note id.

Better behaving developers do not necessarily result in better games.

praise arqon

hallelujah

thx for posting here. but i really really dont understand how anyone can justify slowing and dumbing down the game to let viewers follow it. are esports viewers significantly dumber than say real sports viewers? one would think quite the opposite. so why is it that we are collectively dumped on by developers making such claims?

could I just ask why you decided to make the upcoming shootmania LAN coincide with the same dates as DHS?

It has already been said, the lan isn't organized by Nadeo...

"Of course they might include items, closed maps and more weapons, but then it will just be the same as any other FPS... "
so what you want? you don't like something new (them new gametype) and you don't like old fps style.

I think you misunderstand me - I'm trying to describe the difficulty of the problem:

I do like the old fps style, but I understand that it is difficult to attract new players. Shootmania has tried to make it easier for new players, but I am not convinced that the way they have done it is a good thing. But if you change what they have done back to items, closed maps and more weapons, then the result is nothing new from the old style fps - so what's the point?.

That is the problem that someone has to try to overcome,

I am not fan of them idea: "we made trackamania with 4 arrows". What next? they will make Starcraft style game with 2 units and 1 base?
Only thing FPS can be sucesfull is invest a lot money to it, do tours and so on, not make it click click ...

from the sparse information available atm i got the following: there are 3 weapons but two o them are only available on certain maps. all maps that have been shown so far are very open and the editor seems to be focused on creating those aswell

If there is somebody that wants to lead the test from the ESR perspective, it is possible yes. He has to be an admin or moderator and contact Alinoa or Cerovan on the official forum of Maniaplanet.

He would be the one being able to have some invite for the next phase, and it would be cool to have ESR on board.

We could work this out and see if some admins would be motivated to do it. I guess our readers wanna know about the basics of the game, how it plays, etc etc... I'll post something about it in our admin forum :)

Hi, cool to have the developer here :)
Please don't hesitate to post any Shootmania, or any other competitive gaming content.

I'll be frank - this sounds like a trap.

ESR is a hostile place full of unpredictable, or one might say, highly predictable obnoxious behavior.

That's not true. ESR is an open communication platform for competitive gamers. I guess the competitive character really brings out hostility sometimes. It's inevitable, but we should try and manage it.

But if we tolerate semi-competitive games now, it's only a step away from turning completely non-competitive!

yes please!

Really surprised to see you there, congrats, keep up the good work.
In everything I read so far about shootmania, the leitmotiv is the skill gap between beginners and advanced players.
I can only compliment your researches on one of the most important aspect of a competitive game, but even with all the simplification and work the studio put in ;
aren't you afraid that chances are top tier players will mostly be quakers ?
As pro-quakers are used to a more complex gameplay and have mastered it for years, it makes no debate to me that they will rape most people.
That said, quakers not being the most noob-friendly community around (should I say the worst?), couldn't it be a problem ? :)

Yes, Quake players we have seen so far in the game are reaching a high level really quickly and are getting the top places. For me it is positive, no trouble about this. It is just important that we can play with them as well. Strenx had 25 on a Melee map and I was second of eight with 10 points ^_^ It is cool that having skill matters, but it is also cool that I can play with him. After, it depends on the mode. On Royal, there is less gap and on Joust I can more easily fight a duel against him here than on QL, where it would be a nomatch from the first second to the last, even if Quake is maybe the game I played the most in my life.

About the spirit, I can only try to be positive, encourage people to be and bring attention to the ones who are.

Hi, thanks for taking your time to post here.

I will make you a question not on the game itself but the way youre promoting it. I think that making a LAN event at the same time of DreamHack doesnt talks well of shootmania management/marketing . Now the question, did you payed strenx/stermy some $$$ to make them drop dreamhack and start playing shootmania?

You are right that this is a bad day somehow because of this

for info:
1. we are not the organizers of the LAN but SNGT and ESU are
2. I have learned on a eSport news site that Stermy was coming instead of DH, as well as I have seen after the topic on the ESR forum.

I know, however that some players like Stermy are being potentially asked to join ShootMania team structure in multigaming teams in order to compete soon on the scene maybe. In June, there is the Twitch TV tournament, the SOPA, the CybSum http://www.cybsum.com/ and maybe others in a very close timing, on same week ends or week ends after. And with upcoming online tournaments as well.

It is kind of early since we are still Alpha, but eSport has changed on this. It is today more important to go quicker on a game since it can help it grow faster, sure, but also help people who go in it to establish themselves as references. What if ESR would like to welcome a lot of Halo players (now I can have many replies ^_^) or what if a team would like to have great players in their line up sooner.

Off course, it can be another flop that everybody said good thing before. The fact is that we started with tournaments, showmatch and have some experts people to come at the studio since years. Matthieu Dallon, founder of ESWC and new owner, came at the studio maybe six times over the last 3 years to see ShootMania and discuss. It does not mean we will succeed but it means that some people are convinced by arguments but also by what they experienced in first tournaments.

Maybe you should also know that I was expecting to go to Dreamhack because things were supposed to happen there big as well, but planning had made it difficult to see it happen. I think there may still be some cool stuff, we will see.

Our goal is much less to recruit expert players for prestige than trying to bring them the right game to move forward eventually. Will it be the MH for FPS, who knows ^^? I think they feel we sincerely try, and maybe they have more fun as being pioneer of a story that is being written than a story where the main actor is maybe too out of it, I don't know. Matthieu Dallon told me two years ago that we ought to succeed because of "support" We have raised a new entity named Nadeo Live to support the development of our gamers, for events, eSport, community development, tools, communication etc. I hope he was right and maybe others hope it as well ^_^

Anyway, maybe it can bring tons of new players on this type of FPS, and that they will enjoy Quake Live more after playing ShootMania. If you think Quake is the formula one of competitions, then maybe ShootMania is another class of car, and that the ultimate will always be Quake, even if not so many people drive Formula One. In fact, I think that Quake is so perfect in his own genre, that it doomed it a little: what can the studio add to please the players and still have revenues from it to have support. The goal was to widen the revenue base by going with a business model that has been said to be inspired by our own success of TrackMania by the way. They said it failed, so it was worrying: what can they do to make a new Quake better when many players from it says it is perfect like that?

But I think I am off topic. I just feel that whatever is happening to Quake is not our fault. If we do a success, it may even raise the desire from Id to make a new Quake, with more community tools. So, as you see, this is maybe cool that players discuss this early thanks to the coincidence of Dreamhack and Sopa instead of trying to ignore one game or another? is Stermy not being a good example, a good alarm, a good pionner for the community? Maybe this is a courageous move in a community to try something new, would it be a success or a fail?

Hi Hylis, nice to see you here.

I think you did the right think with trackmania, by giving to the players every tools to continue to develop the game. I spent a lot of time making mods, skins or maps for Trackmania, and i love this aspect of the title. I will probably buy SM to support Nadeo and to have fun custumising the game, but i think i will always play quake at the same time, as it is the perfect FPS for me.

From what little i have read about shootmania, its levelling the playing field between expert players and casual players. Witch in my eyes isn't the solution. Better players should be rewarded for playing better, not handicapped. So instead of just randomizing the game outcome (that's a short sided strategy imo) an extra effort should be put in to introducing new players to the game and how to "help them along" to develop further while having fun.

Again: having a high skill cap and newbie friendly is not mutually exclusive.

There is a common mistake here I think. There is nothing about making it random. It is about uncertainty. Randomness can be found in Poker but not in Football. If you play a match of Baseball in 6 innings instead of 9, you increase the chances for the outsider to win a match. It is like if you remove a loser bracket in a playoff, you increase the uncertainty of the winner. If you have a game where you can regen when you take a blow, you decrease the uncertainty. If you are closer to instagib, you increase the uncertainty. Your buddy thinks he can win, so he plays. And you want more buddies to plays. The real champions will win anyway because even with this type of gameplay, he will succeed to win multiple time in a rows, but it will be more difficult and more rare, and so even more legends in the end.

I have made a little poll once upon a time

For a sport, a good duel between rank 1 and rank 20 (the outsider) what odds you would like?

The outsider never wins 7% [ 3 ]
The outsider wins one time every 500 matches 2% [ 1 ]
The outsider wins one time every 100 matches 7% [ 3 ]
The outsider wins one time every 50 matches 14% [ 6 ]
The outsider wins one time every 10 matches 48% [ 20 ]
The outsider wins one time every 5 matches 21% [ 9 ]

Since you have 3 people that answered "never wins" It shows that there are different oppinions about what is a good sport for each of us. This is a vague question, but it helped to illustrate the concept that enable more or less people to play together, and more or less spectator to be happy to watch a game. And it is not randomness!

I get your logic, but from what I can gather by your post, we differ in what level of "uncertainty" should be the target ("what is a good sport for each of us")

i don't mind losing if a player/team is clearly better then me/us.
Or even better example is: if i/we play vs a ~equally skilled player/team i want the deciding factor who wins to be skill/brains/teamplay as much as possible. Because most players get batshit crazy when they think some lucky shot cost them the win.

I already mentioned that i think that this we all can play vs one another is a short sided strategy. ppl will get tired of uncertainty of the outcome (in the seance that they cant "control" the outcome to the degree they would like to, and the lack of rewards/re-enforcements for improving their gameplay). Again all depends on the "skill/uncertainty ratio" u set up.
But i guess some of this could be addressed with diffident modes (again: rly know very little about the shootmania project)

Off couse there is a balanced to be found. I am just telling that it has to maybe go more toward something like soccer even if good teams wins the world cup. We would not play a match on one shot, taken in dark. But on the opposite, try to play with your friends to soccer or to Quake and see how many friends leave the field. That's an issue for amateur eSport and so it is for pro eSport. And it all start with the casual eSport which is simply a match for a player that want to try competition.

In fact, you say that there could be different modes. Sure. And different maps, that's even more true. it changes the odds as well. And what I want to add is that I believe that the community also makes it, and that it is a double edged sword for the community itself.

What if it is the hardcore that decide what should be the game? Will they decide that they should be less sure to win next time even if they have a better level?

So yes the community can make modes and maps, but I think there is a lot that the community has to learn in order to welcome the new players and reduce the hardcore barrier that is sometime set. Roswell47 says that it looks like BW community. What if Blizzard let the speed of the game be changed? What players would decide: the maximum. So, Blizzard decide of the maximum. And WhiteRa says he can play SC2 because the APM is lower and enjoy and still win sometimes. Do you want an APM of 300+ to play the game? What the community would decide?

this is a topic that concerns the community as well as the studio. But not only expert from community, also the ones who loses.

i totally agree on the community part tbh (to paraphrase you: if only the hardcore community would decide what kind of gameplay should the game have). Some1 in the studio should have the eye on the bigger picture that's for sure.

I'm just saying that having a "mario cart" style game is fun for all your friends, but that to is only gonna be fun up to a point (and for a certain amount of time, or frequency of play if u wish). I'm only emphasizing this point again because from your posts I'm reading that you are leaning "to much" to the uncertainty side of the scale. If you are goal is to dish out different expansions of the every year or smth, then i get your business plan. I was just hoping that a fps game developer would finally try to do smth proper...a game that is both newbie friendly and has a high skill cap. Monetizing that would not be a problem.

Anyways, thank you for taking the time to respond.

there is no randomness in TrackMania for good reason. If we spin a wheel at the end of the race to know who is the winner, this is not a sport anymore, but a lottery game or whatever.

We agree, we are looking at making a game that is both newbie friendly and has a high skill cap, but also where it is easier to have fun between both party. Just easier ^^

And there could only be someone at the studio if the community is capable to accept that the bigger picture can also be good for them. They will want to secure the next tournament, but by trying too much of doing it, they will end with no tournament. This is the bigger picture.

I get where the community is lacking. I just hope that where i see u are lacking is wrong. (how you are gonna handle the "easier to have fun between both", and how high the skill cap will be).

in any case: gl

if the community is capable to see the interest of having a bigger player base and the studio have time to listen and provide support, it shall not be about luck. But it is ok to start with gl as well here as you do in competition.

thanks ^^

It is about uncertainty. Randomness can be found in Poker but not in Football.

Poker is about uncertainty, not "randomness".

thanks for the offer, i am sure there is interest. actually i know, cause i for one, am very interested in testing it out and writing about it here ;)

After playing quake for some 15 years, I actually see the potential with this ShootMania.

Part 1: Imagine, a game where everyone can pick it up and play quite easily, which isn't really the case for quake. Now, we have millions of users enjoying themselves....

Part 2: Some players get more and more experienced and crave more action and more dynamic gameplay. Imagine, a few people make a better mod, or more competitive mod that catches on, something that introduces more of the dynamics of quake.

Part 3: This mod catches on for competitive play and anyone that's introduced to this mod through L3v3lUp, or through chat, can now download ShootMania and start to play (the basic game), and when they feel like they're experienced, they can try the competitive mod... if they hate getting dominated (like in quake), they can go back to just playing the basic game.

The above solves a lot of the problems that has created a decreasing quake community.

Now, what to do about the cheaters, which is the reason I stopped playing quakelive :)

Cheers

I can't say I'm looking forward to seeing it ( because it does look and sound pretty fucking dull to me ) but at least it's trying to give the genre a new spin by doing the obvious thing most people can't seem to think of : going back to the basics and stripping down as much ( prolly too much in that case ) of the vanity mechanics and making what's left so fucking obvious you can't ignore it.
quick edit : just remembered the thing about the rocket launcher reload. Sounds like a gimmick brought in to make up for the lack of depth somewhere else to me.

The mods part is pretty weird though, if everybody can do their stuff it's gonna end up with 1782 mods and nobody ( new to competitive stuff ) is going to play them or the company will pick a few of them to make them public ( and then they're gonna take as much heat than arqon did basically - except they will give even less fucks )

too busy plaing diablo 3 :(

i havent seen kind of nothing of the game. so the hype bores me. i wanna see something substantial. if there isnt, game dont exist.

hyped multiplayers in the past: crysis 1, wolfenstein 2009, brink, duke nukem forever. whats next.

ok, nice trailer! Game looks beautiful. but what else?

imho, some games like Warsow or Xonotic have more potential!

you like xonotic too? how about trying some games with more than 17 players.

this is not my problem that those games are not so popular as LoL or DOTA. I have a lot of fun playing Wsw/Xon =) that's why I try to promote them.

About "more that 17 players":
NFS World
Track Mania Nations

p.s. I love speed and arcade, QL looks very boring for me, but still It is quake, and I respect this game. Ok? Friends?)

protip : you completely missed the point.

No fucking wonder Quake is dead. You're all more scared of change than the BW community. Nadeo wants to make a game just for you and no one else. They bring a game to you on a silver platter and you all decide to take a huge shit on it. Reality check please!

Didn't know I was asking for a game that reduced the skill ceiling to a beautiful blend of mediocre. I can't wait to be totally average!

this is not about skill ceiling. you can improve in an infinite time, but the skill slope is not as steep, so two people that started to climb at one time will more likely be at an level that enables them to enjoy to play together. Like a mountain where only some abnormal people would succeed to climp or a massive hill where everybody can walk on it but that goes as high as the mountain.

With TrackMania, players are getting better and better since 6 years with 4 arrows. If you add two buttons, two jauges to watch, switch of gameplay at some locations and many additionnal things that you can master more and more (but do not make yourselves invicible), then you can do enough for infinite time. Soccer is like that.

If you start each map of Quake with a corridor that requires you to be as best as the best top 3 Defrag players in the world to go through it, you think you are making it more skill based, but you are just dooming your game. And some ways to make comments can also harm the other game your think you are harming. It is not a battle, it is a quest to find the best game for competition. We made a game named TrackMania Nations ESWC in 2006. A game for eSport. It would be strange that we don't care for skill.

Ia appreciate that you can address the players yourself
However, I disagree on your view on skill.

What you call a "skill slope not as steep" is actually a removal of skills. When you remove skills, you remove aspects of the game players can get better at.
It then becomes something like Football vs Bowling. You do have to be talented for Bowling, but it simply relies on less skills. If the games were equally popular, maybe you would need to put in as much time to get better at Bowling. And maybe the game would be consistent enough. It would still show less sportmanship, because it would use less skills. It would also be not as varied, allow for less playstyles, as people couldn't focus on the skills differently and so on. There are many hidden advantages to having a truly pure game.
Perhaps an even better example would be to say that you're taking football and making it more like a penalty match. Not that steeply, but something towards that.

If you start each map of Quake with a corridor that requires you to be as best as the best top 3 Defrag players in the world to go through it, you think you are making it more skill based, but you are just dooming your game.

Quake isn't really like that. Low skilled players can still play ztn. It's just that they can't play versus much better players. If you try to make it so the better player's can't dominate them, you're removing skills from the game. The quest here is to make low skilled players play against low skilled players. Not to remove integral parts of the game.

I wish you the best of luck with your game. In fact, I hope to try it out myself. My only gripe is that unless you allow the game to be modded very heavily (closed maps, items, weaponswitch, a few more weapons... essentially Quake), I won't be able to appreciate it as a competitive game. It'll be shallow, and the fact will haunt every competent player that understands this :(

What haunt competent players is that other players are leaving a game where they are competent at. But I am not sure you are really wanting to debate here, since I said that with TrackMania, 4 arrows were enough to have legitimate world champions. So, it is obvious that pro players can dominate a newb, like it is already happening in the alpha. The question is about having a graduation of this and still some fun when the levels are separate. So, let it be to your test maybe, and I have no trouble that you stay on Quake, sincerly, I know what it is, this is the most played game of my life ;)

What haunt competent players is that other players are leaving a game where they are competent at.

Yes. And there are many ways to solve this. I can only agree with some of those ways though, that's what I'm saying.

But I am not sure you are really wanting to debate here, since I said that with TrackMania, 4 arrows were enough to have legitimate world champions.

Even if we disagree, we might leave our different opinions clearer, so there's no reason we cannot debate.

If they we're the best that day of the tournament, they deserved to win. In that sense, they were legitimate. I cannot argue that.
Actually, I don't think trackmania is simple at all. It's tracks and speed provided a lot of complexity that many racing games didn't have. Would you consider this important in it's legitimacy, even if in a different way, or no?

If you do, I'd like to point out that in my opinion, a Defrag competition of the same scale (meaning, with the same amount of players, if that was possible) would be probably more legitimate in that sense.

The question is about having a graduation of this and still some fun when the levels are separate.

I see your point an I'm glad you think this way. This is probably way more than I could expect, and I applaud you for this view.

Let's just say that I think you're very hardcore for a developer, but a little casual from the utmost hardcore player's point of view. If always said "Quake is too hardcore to be popular", I'd nod sadly and probably agree with you, at least partially. But you talked about "not as steep a skill curve", as if smoothing out was the only thing you were doing here, I can't help but notice that you were a little deceitful.

By business standards though, you're already being absurdly clear about your intentions, so really, I can't complain.

My intention is to have a game that is good for competition, spectators, players that want to play with their friends that have a different level and still enjoy it. Yeah, making a game as positive, fun and great to share that the soccer is. I don't get your word "absurdly clear" If it is the fact that we are making a game for competition, it is clearly one of our intentions.

But again, I am not sure we are in a debate like when you make me say that I am only doing the smoothing. Maybe it is you that have to be absurdly clear on your intention here?

which does not mean that you have to have the same taste for a sport. For info, I posted this just before:
"
I have made a little poll once upon a time

For a sport, a good duel between rank 1 and rank 20 (the outsider) what odds you would like?

The outsider never wins 7% [ 3 ]
The outsider wins one time every 500 matches 2% [ 1 ]
The outsider wins one time every 100 matches 7% [ 3 ]
The outsider wins one time every 50 matches 14% [ 6 ]
The outsider wins one time every 10 matches 48% [ 20 ]
The outsider wins one time every 5 matches 21% [ 9 ]

Since you have 3 people that answered "never wins" It shows that there are different oppinions about what is a good sport for each of us. This is a vague question, but it helped to illustrate the concept that enable more or less people to play together, and more or less spectator to be happy to watch a game.
"

What would be your answer?

That "absurdly clear" comment was meant as a compliment.

My argument about smoothing was that the smoothing involved removing skills and thus making the highest possible skill lower in the areas where those skills were. In this are, it seemed to me like you only said you were doing smoothing and avoided mentioning the removal of skills, which would eventually make the whole skillcap lower.
It was never meant to be about whatever else you guys are doing in other areas of the game, or even if there are other purposes for the removal of skills other than this one. I'm speaking from a purely competitive standpoint about skills that I feel are important to the game.

The poll is interesting. I remember 2GD talking about a research where they divided chess into levels, where players in each level were able to beat players of a lower level 90% of the time. Chess had 17 of them, IIRC. The number of levels like that, IMO, should have a great correlation with a game's skillcap, atleast two games had similar playerbases and enough accurate statistics for that.

Your poll isn't as clear cut as the research. Ideally, the player who played better should always win. How often would I like a player to play better? Well, it depends on the skills the game employs. The more, the harder skills the game has, the bigger the difference between two players should be.

However, some skills are not as consistent as others. Some are inherently involved with risk.

If a game had very consistent skills, I wouldn't mind a metagame where rank 1 always topples rank 20.

If a game was not as consistent not because of less, easier skills involved in it, but because of risky situations not working out for the rank 1, maybe I wouldn't mind seeing the rank 20 winning something between one very 20-50 matches.

A good example for the second type of the game would be scbw. It does involve inherent luck that I dislike (guessing spawn locations, for example), it does involve some half-blind guesses for the players, but it's not an argument against the game's skill even when an outsider wins more than 1 in every 5 matches. It is, however, a little too volatile, I'd say.

Ok, good in the debate there. My mistake if I understand you not clearly.

Risk exist as well in Quake when you decide to fire a rocket in that corridor instead of the other to guess, like in SCBW where the spawn is. It has less effect and it is smoothed by more skill in Quake, that's the difference.

The same way, risk exist in soccer when you shoot in the ball and think the defense will move there or there, or in basketball with a basket since nobody in the world can consistently do a 3 points basket. So the shooter in basketball take a risk.

The glorious uncertainty of sport is based on that, and a sport that would only mesure the size of the competitors can not exist: results would be known before the competition.

And I think that having a game were rank 1 always top rank 20 can have the same bad effect: why would I play the quarter of final, why would I watch it.

In the end, how many matches of the tournament I would really care to watch. If you take the soccer world cup and apply your preferred ratio (20-50) Only the final, if he is 20th versus 1st, it would take 150 years before he wins. With five matches to win, it would be something like never.

It looks in the end that we talked about a preference more than a logic. And my preference is that the outsider can win more often than it seem for you. As a real question then, it would be to find a weekly popular sport based on your preference, and it is maybe not a coincidence if I have difficulty to find it.

I agree that the real question is "How often would I like a player to play better?" and I thank you for this precision!

It's kind of a different topic.

I'm not really against a game as volatile as starcraft if it was as hard as starcraft.

Deathmatch, however, seems to be less volatile. My main point though is that this volatility is not to be tweaked by removing integral skills, else the game loses some of it's competitive appeal by making the game easier.

And I think that having a game were rank 1 always top rank 20 can have the same bad effect: why would I play the quarter of final, why would I watch it.

If we were to go without my example, the rank 20 vs. rank 1 final would never happen, so that really isn't a worry for me.

It seems to me like you're implying that quake gameplay makes top 20 players not able to compete for the top spots. I'd say that this was mostly the case due to a lower playerbase and the game being 1v1 rather than teambased.

But that part is irrelevant. It is indeed based on preference, but I was, first and foremost, talking about skill ceilings. Due to your preference in these rank 1 vs. rank 20 win percentages, you're touching what is bound by logic - the skill ceiling, the dynamic and the variety of the game.

Skill ceiling should be as tall as possible. This is why I said the hill can be as big as the mountain. But the height does not prevent you of having many people near you. That's the steepness of the slope that will determine this.

If a game have a maximum skill achievable, I don't think it is good for competition. You would only have #1 once it is reached. No meaning at all.

I believe these definitions are separate;

starcraft is very volatile, but probably the hardest game out there

quake is less volatile, but extremely hard

Shootmania seems to be shaping up to be a more volatile, but also much easier than quake. In making the slope not as steep, while trying to make the game more volatile, you made it easier by removing skills integral to the DeathMatch gameplay.

(I'm speaking about the version of shootmania I saw in those videos)

Our goal was not to remove them, but to start and add what was needed as a multiplayer confrontation FPS first.

In fact, in the previous generation of FPS, many game mechanics aspects are inherited from their past, that is the solo. DeathMatch is also a non existence form of sport if you consider the ffa nature of it. So, there is a lot from solo and multiplayer -non sportive- action. It happened that the team aspect took over in many ways, such as team fortress, ctf, rocket arena, counter strike and is likely to be the same phenomenon observed in RTS from war3 to Dota. Even if Duel are a pure and powerful category of sports, off course.

And I really agree with your simple words, but deep ^_^ A game can be volatile and/or hard. And I think a good balance have to be found for both. But making a game as hard as possible and less volatile as possible is logically what some hardcore time intensive players would want, so they can spend time on it to learn instead of having skill, and be sure to win after, so they can translate the invested time into victory. Learning maps, recoil patterns, build orders are part of this. it is not a default, it is a taste, like the poll illustrate.

You do understand that this whole post can genuinely be understood as tl;dr, aimfest ?

Well, I appreciate your contribution to the community. The way you guys go around building the game and promoting it is very cool. As I said, I'm looking forward to try it out anyway, even if just for a little.

But to clarify on my point, I'm not really harshly against volatility. If it isn't about inherent luck (like random spray patterns and stuff), I'm OK with it.

What I'm against is removing skillful parts of the game, just to make it more volatile.

If you just made it volatile (which I think could be largely done by promoting teamplay modes, without really damaging gameplay), I'd be very much so OK with it. What me and other Quakers are arguing here for is the skillcap, which we think is in a very serious threat with your modifications.

We are getting closer to understand each other I think here.

To be clear, I just want to add skill, but to reduce the effect of it. Let's say that a special jump give you 30% speed advantage in a situation, I would rather say it should give 10% advantage. It is the same skill required, but the master will be less powerful in all situation to run away from the less master. The goal is to reduce the gap without reducing the skill required. Weapon switch and items are seen as skill, and it is. But if you can achieve a skill without this, than I think you can keep the positive without having the negatives. If you ask players to type a different letter each time they want to load one ammo, it would be more skilled, but it does not mean it is a good mechanic.

More skill, less gap.

It's called nerfing something so much that it has no reason to exist anymore.

You're avoiding the real issues.

omg you're getting boring..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6OifhQ64EM

In terms of gameplay this, however, makes styles less diverse and the game more plain.

Starcraft's volatility is inherent to the game, yet it relies on counteracting strategies. It does not disallow to outplay your opponent to absurd levels.

In terms of skill, I feel like adding mechanics that are fluid is best. A jump may be 5% better than running for a newbie, 15% better for a decent player, 25% better for a professional and 27% better for a defragger.
They can also be dependent on space and time available, and the exact distance the player wants to jump. But not because he'd simply hold a button for longer, but because he'd be able to perform different kind of jumps with different angles, all of which would be done with different competence by different competitors.

Such is the circlejump in Quake 3. Such is the weapon system in Quake 3, as you can consider their effectiveness relative to distance and terrain, and possible movement you can do to change them.

Such things are affected by simplifications. Once you remove them (like only allow a single weapon), you might make it so that the lesser player is at a slighter disadvantage.

But that's not the only thing you do, you remove a skill that added complexity from the game. It's gone.

To sum this up, I don't think you're doing the 30% speed advantage reduction to 10%. It's more like you're removing complexity which cannot be replaced.

Which brings me to my main point. You cannot do the same thinking as you did in quake and simply get less out of it. You can, however, allow for less thinking, allowing for a slighter advantage. With shootmania, you're doing the latter. I'd love to be wrong, but from what I've gathered this seems to be the case.

I'm leaving creativity and diversity mostly out of the table, but those are gone the same way skill is.

Sorry on this one, but it looks like that you think that basic complexity is the only solution for skill. Like if 30 weapons would be better than a deeper one. Like if number of different units would make SC a deeper game than GO is. I gave the exemple of TM with 4 arrows as well (http://www.tm-tube.com/video/23865/RIDE+ON%21...mp%3B+tRkr)

I can easily add weapon switch and will if I feel there is a lack of skill required. Takes us a day. But it may go the opposite interesting way for both hardcore and new players. So I will wait.

Wish you play it at some point and see you online

I didn't understand. Are you saying you're leaving the discussion? If so, thanks for participating, I hope we both learned something.

I'll reply to clarify on my point anyway, since I don't think summary does it justice.

Go has a very large board to put your places on. Therefor I don't think the simplicity of it harms the gameplay.

About weapons in a Deathmatch game, I'll first quote myself.

Such is the weapon system in Quake 3, as you can consider their effectiveness relative to distance and terrain, and possible movement you can do to change them.

If you have that with 30 weapons, it would make the game guesswork - it's too much to consider.

If you have 5 weapons in the game and 2-5 different weapon sets for the opposing players, it's a very intricate game with both players considering multiple options, different for each.

If you have two players with one weapon each, they'll each just do what's good with their respective weapon. Very simple and straigtforward.

I could provide similar examples considering armors, movement systems and closed maps.

I hope ShootMania allows us to create that. Else it won't be as skillful as quake, even if it is fun.

I didn't understand.

Nobody did, especially not him. Half of the stuff you asked about is stuff he simply does not understand, hence why he always goes back to his controls/execution panic room.

By patience and manners you can achieve something even with the least competent debate partners, and I don't think he's anywhere near that level :). What you're opponent doesn't understand, you're obliged to point out again.

He did point out many things he hopes to do with the game, too.

Whatever the case, important knowledge about competitive gameplay design still needs to be discussed and pointed out as clearly as possible. I think I still achieved something, even if I'm clearly not the best debater and he probably still doesn't have the most important parts of competitive gameplay design down.

Patience and manners won't help with someone dodging every real question one way or another to keep his game designer ego happy.

What you're opponent doesn't understand, you're obliged to point out again.

You can do this part with manners or without. Both work. With will most likely yield better results.

Depends if you think said opponent doesn't understand or doesn't want to understand.

You think that an opponent that doesn't want to understand will somehow react better to insults? Or do you just want to insult him for the hell of it?

I don't think there's much else to do other than for pointing out the flaws as elaborately as possible. This makes you look better and gives him a chance to listen, if he chooses to do so.

It's his fucking job, we shouldn't have to teach him.

His job is to lie and acquire currency.

:D

Spoken like a true anti capitalist commie!

Would you then say that when two players encounter with the same weapon in a FPS, it is not skill and not fun? Two people firing rockets at each other in Quake is bad?

The fact that there are objectives, that the player states are not mirror, terrain that gives advantages in some places than others can lead to skill without being obliged to have multiple weapons. What would be if a weapon would act differently depending on how you fire it, would it be a multiple weapon in a single one? does the number is the only path to deepness?

It is like saying that 2 is better than 1 without even knowing of what 2 and 1 we are talking about. I brought the concept of gauge to the rocket launcher into the discussion that enables you to fire different bullet pattern of your choice. I think it is deeper than weapon switch. I brought the fact that movement has a gauge and pros/cons at using it depending of the situation and I think it is deeper than infinite movement resource, like if a weapon would have no limitation on ammo anytime. I brought the concept of weapon on predefined spot that enable strategic position on a map linked to a moving area that can change with the map, which brings deepness I think.

We have not yet talk about the zoom function that change your range at the same time, the Nucleus weapon that is more strategic than any weapon I know and about the various ground speed surfaces that makes you choose different routes depending on your choice of stamina expenditure.

I have met many people that says that the Quake pattern, mainly inherited from Solo and Deathmatch culture, is the only option. I love the game and this is the one I played the most in my life. I dedicated my work to games as well, so I am passionate about the subjects. But I hope I will never close the door to exploration of the better. And if we can have simple and deep gameplay, I would rather take it. Complexity, map learning, weapon pattern learning etc. are better for people who would like to learn the game they play on and that a new comer would lose not because of its skill but because he does not know the map, the weapon or the timings. Achieving victory by learning has nothing negative, it is just a different style of competition than I am looking for atm. And trying to achieve it by trolling like some are doing here is not interesting for me either. I don't say you are doing it, but I kind of feel that it is the spirit to basically fire like if it was a battle more than a debate. I am not here to frag or to dodge rockets as when you write "I'm leaving creativity and diversity mostly out of the table, but those are gone the same way skill is." And I hope you understand that this is indeed not interesting to read in a debate, especially when "diversity" is the key word for me thinking about ShootMania.

And since I wrote this "I can easily add weapon switch and will if I feel there is a lack of skill required. Takes us a day. But it may go the opposite interesting way for both hardcore and new players. So I will wait." I don't see really the need to continue the discussion as well. I try to achieve deepness without complexity but would not trade it against complexity. You can have taken the GO example as a positive point also by saying that yes deepness can be achieve with a simple game, let's hope that the rest of the parameters are wide enough for a champion to use them. I often compare freefigth and boxing. In boxing, there are limitations, it makes the fight more a sport/art than a pure free form combat. I think we are more looking at boxing than free fight. You can think it is more boring, but when you play, you feel the invisible walls of your skill that are more subtle than only playing hundreds of hours to just know what to do and when to do it in a specific map. First reason why people play on the same and that brings some diversity issues.

So, I will add weapon switch and items in the future if we lack deepness, don't be afraid. But I think there are many more interesting things before. Why would not I want a game that can be deep if I do a game since years for eSport? I just want to limit the complexity of it. You said nothing about the trouble that players have to learn maps in order to jump in. It is knowledge, not skill.

And trying to achieve it by trolling like some are doing here is not interesting for me either.

Pretty sure you're talking about me there so I'm going to answer :
Had I not been at first genuinely interested to see what you had in mind I wouldn't even have bothered posting anything here. Your lack of explanations, your inability to articulate your thoughts ( this last post is way better than the previous ones ) and your constant attempts to reinvent some kind of cuboid wheel to reintroduce elements from other dm games ( the obvious one here being positionning ) for some reason I can't understand and your insane dodging skills made me ( and still make me ) believe that you don't truely understand the subject.

All your handwaving using the very generic and vague term " skill " which any somewhat decent player would tell you pretty much as no meaning by itself and especially without something to support it - let's pick a random example : knowledge and experience - and your assumption that your players are too dumb to learn a supposedly " more complex " game don't help at all either.

I very much agree with the fact that quake need to get some rust knocked off and that some streamlining in order to make the core mechanics of the game more apparent is needed. So would be a company that actually supports the game. I disagree with the way you do it.

As for the "french" comments, you know very well what I meant. You are free to interpret them as you feel appropriate.

Feel better now, butthurt ?

In fact, we are just starting from the base and not going frantic about classes, weapons, recoil patterns, maps etc. because a sport is not about learning, but by being good and practicing to become. There is no trivia for a sport itself, but for the players and competitions. And I am not trying to introduce elements from other games here, but this is more likely to be exactly what many of the posts are mainly thinking. It is too much of a coincidence that players that gives lessons only suggest things that exist in their favorite game. And I don't think it is a question of rust, I think it is a deeper question. Anyway, I don't need to be recall what Quake is, I played it enough and know enough high level players to have deep feedback on this particular subject if I need.

And yeah I was talking about you indeed, but there are many others around ^_^ I was not offended, I made somehow a parrallele with the type of competition that players a sometimes looking for to maybe the quest to feel stronger in spite of being really skilled, to answer your butthurt :p

Mr. Jean Hyperbole, please stop bringing stuff nobody talked about to the convo - classes, recoil patterns - nobody cares because it doesn't belong here.
A sport is about learning. If you believe the opposite you are delusional, plain and simple.

Did I suggest anything ? Did in mention what I thought had to be changed in quake ?
There is indeed a deeper question but I sincerely believe you are missing the whole point and try to convince yourself that you get it by saying out of topic stuff out your ass.

If sport is about learning, where is the book about soccer people must learn before playing? There is a difference between practicing and learning. A real sportsman can be good at a sport really fast, because he is skilled globally. That's the same with FPS that requires less knowledge than skill.

I will leave you with wormed, you have more in common.

So you're saying that just by grinding games after games after games like a retard 16 hours a day somebody can be sure to become the best shootmania player ? We both know that's not what you want and we both know it's not true either.

If you, again, fail to understand the implications of this next sentence, this will pretty much prove that you don't understand any of the concepts you're juggling with : " you sound like you never learned a single thing during all those long hours you say you have played quake/sc/tetris/whatever game. "

... the hell? How the hell do you think that the coaches got to be in their positions? Studying the game, studying the players, and studying how to help players get better. Do you think that every professional player just somehow got professional without having to learn anything?

maaan, I was trying to get him to realize that by himself, why ruin it ? :p

I totally agree with this when you say that you have to learn about the opponent. But there is no "guide" to soccer to make you win. Between tennis and starcraft, the number of things to know before you can compete are different. Coaches are here to improve your practive, make analysis, which is different from teaching for knowledge. They are here to make you practice better, create team tactics etc. Just watching to shoutcast of LoL or SC2 makes it sounds that there is a lot of knowledge involved. It is obvious, but even that seems difficult to be accepted as an argument. This is probably because it is not a simple knowledge, but something you see with experience. That's the difference.

But there is no "guide" to soccer to make you win.

Yes, there is - just no specific guide.

Coaches are here to improve your practive, make analysis, which is different from teaching for knowledge.

If nobody needed to be taught, there would be no need for a coach. That is what the coaches get paid to do. Nobody gets pro on their own. It's like you've never played a sport, or a professional game.

You are right, even if I have been in sport clubs, I have never been a pro, meaning to be paid to play sports or games. I am a pro game maker. And it shall be for good reasons if I follow your way of thinking for coaches. But I don't know why, I doubt this will be taken simply as you wanted to use it as an argument ^^

You said:

where is the book about soccer people must learn before playing?

It's called the play book. It's tons of studying, both by players and by coaches. It's like you're oblivious to the most important part of any game/sport. You practice TO learn. You coach to make use of what was learned from practice.

Again, I think you are using the work "learn" without the sense I used it. So, it is useless since I was talking about the inherent knowledge of the sport itself that is not in a book, which is different from sciences or other discipline based on knowledge, such as history, chemistry or some esport games. No trouble if you don't answer, we are talking about obvious things.

Learning does not require a book, but that has nothing to do with it to begin with. There are plenty of things that NEED to be learned "from a book" before playing any sport/game. The language barrier certainly isn't helping you, but I can't imagine that you have a coherent argument in any language.

I rarely saw students reading book to be better at sport. I rarely see books on the side of the terrain. But I often see guide on the internet to help play some games and paid lessons are more numerous considered the number of pro.

Players are somehow learning openings, timings in SC2. It is a little like chess where you have to memorize stuff. And before you attack me on this, here is a little tweet

http://twitter.com/MLGLee/status/208343502352949248

But at least you intentions are cleared with your last sentence. You are kind of trying to win something out of nowhere. You right, I am not coherent and do games at random and you can go claim your victory, bye.

You didn't actually reply to anything.

there is nothing to reply to this:"I can't imagine that you have a coherent argument in any language"

bye

I said "anything". You didn't just fail to respond to that part, but any part. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

A real sportsman can be good at a sport really fast, because he is skilled globally.

I promised to finish replying, but I just had to jump in here. Just for a single question.

I'd be very interested to hear in what sport this is the case. From all the popular sports I can think of right now, the players had to sacrifice their lives for them. The only real esport ever (SC:BW) happened to be much more like that than any other computer game, too.

Maybe you only thing top level? Sorry, but as I have played in sports club as well, I saw people that are getting good at sports quickly. Maybe if you played high school, you saw that not many books, or internet website with guides where used by students. How much do you seem to have to learn to switch from Quake to CS, from W3 to SC2, from LoL to Dota2 etc? Would you have the help of a guide? Practicing is another thing. Maybe the word 'learning' is too vague here since it is quite strange how this simple question, often obvious with many people I discuss with, seems to be misunderstood here.

Good doesn't mean better than you.

Would you then say that when two players encounter with the same weapon in a FPS, it is not skill and not fun? Two people firing rockets at each other in Quake is bad?

If it happens in a duel or TDM, I'm OK with it. The players have to consider the other weapons even if they only have two in the actual case.
But CA (due to lack of powerups and all weapons given at start), and InstaGib (only Rail) are widely considered to be inferior in the quake community.

The fact that there are objectives, that the player states are not mirror, terrain that gives advantages in some places than others can lead to skill without being obliged to have multiple weapons.

But if it's one weapon vs another, it's straigtforward what the players will want to do with terrain. Multiple different weapons are what allow players to abuse the terrain to their advantage.



Concerning the weapons in ShootMania, Quake, and what is enough:
The complexity we have in quake is created, in essence, by the three main weapons. Some weapons can replace them in certain situations (SG, PG), some weapons can be used for secondary purposes (PG, nade launcher, RL).
If the weapon system SM has makes up for three different good wepaon playstyles and allows to change weapons, it's probably ok. But the secondary weapons are very good for the game too.
If you only have one weapon, it's the equivalent of InstaGib, or RL vs RG fights over and over again. It will not go the other way and not become better than quake if it doesn't have the chance to.

"I can easily add weapon switch and will if I feel there is a lack of skill required. Takes us a day."

So I hope you do. Because I'm positive that it won't be deep enough it's like it seems. This is the whole point of the discussion - I, along with most other quakers, feel like wepaon switch, armors and a few other things are essential to a deathmatch competitive game.

Why would not I want a game that can be deep if I do a game since years for eSport?

Because LoL did it. Even Starcraft II did it. And it paid off - because "eSports" nowadays is just about popularity and clueless viewers, sadly. I can provide quotes from top players, if anybody wishes.

You said nothing about the trouble that players have to learn maps in order to jump in. It is knowledge, not skill.

Complexity, map learning, weapon pattern learning etc. are better for people who would like to learn the game they play on and that a new comer would lose not because of its skill but because he does not know the map, the weapon or the timings

Skill is intertwined with knowledge. Look at the Russian school of ztn specialists, czm on hub, ZeRo4 on T4. It doesn't just create skill, it creates creativity and a diversity of valid playstyles, all of which amount to a better game. So it's not just knowledge you're messing with. Unless you want to call the entirety of skill in all of the games just knowledge, but that's just another name for the same thing.

This part has to be solved with matchmaking rather than simpler maps.

One thing I'd really like to add is that objectives cannot replace powerups. With objectives, you simply have to know how much time it will take to do the objective, how much firepower you'll have to eath and how much you can take. This is a lot more like the knowledge you're speaking of rather than skill.
With powerups, you have to know how much you or your oponent could be more powerful, in what ways and at what cost. Cost is the same thing you have with objectives, the prior parts are on top of that.




Yeah, I think we can end our discussion. It's fairly clear what I (and most quakers) think about ShootMania's chances to become a skillful game, and what you hope to achieve with different tools. Especially in the few latest posts. I learned how you think this can become a skillful game, and hopefully you have learned a little about why exactly I think it most likely won't.

I'll be watching the progress of ShootMania, and I'm wishing you luck. Thanks for the debate.

Because LoL did it. Even Starcraft II did it. And it paid off - because "eSports" nowadays is just about popularity and clueless viewers, sadly. I can provide quotes from top players, if anybody wishes.

No need, http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=340697

Truth about sc2, brood war and eSports.

eSports term is so bad in so many different ways, yet people are throwing it around constantly.

No. Quake is not eSports. Shootmania will not be eSports. SC2 is not eSports. It's competitive gaming. Only eSport that ever existed, and transcended the virtual boundaries and basically turned in to a real sport is Brood War.

Rest is just competitive gaming.

"eSports" is just a buzzword - it doesn't have any more value than "professional gaming", or "competitive gaming".

And end conversation.

Here in lies the problem. There should be a HUGE skill disparity between someone who simply doesn't know how to do something and someone who has MASTERED something. You use the word "master" like it's nothing.

To me, I want someone who has put in the time/effort to become a "master" to absolutely rip me a new asshole if I'm not dedicating the same amount of time to it. I don't want a professional to put countless hours into the game only to be CAPPED early and barely get ahead of joe blow new player.

This is exactly why Shootmania is garnering a lot of negative feelings from Quake players.

I remember 2GD talking about a research where they divided chess into levels, where players in each level were able to beat players of a lower level 90% of the time. Chess had 17 of them, IIRC. The number of levels like that, IMO, should have a great correlation with a game's skillcap, atleast two games had similar playerbases and enough accurate statistics for that.

that sounds really interesting. we will never get solid numbers for different pc games but i would love to know them.

Yeah, I wish I remembered what stream it was. 2GD was boasting how quake would probably beat chess, haha.
If two games had similar playerbases and, global, similar, decent ELO rating systems, you could make the levels out of that. But it would depend on the seriousness of the whole playerbase just as much as on the difficulty of the game.

Seemingly, your mentality is "we made Trackmania super popular as an eSport with 4 arrows, so clearly, we can do this with a FPS game." My obvious bias is clear here but you've got to be joking and utterly fooling yourself if you can compare a game like Quake and all of its intricacies to, say, Need for Speed, or hell, Trackmania. There is just a way grander metagame involved completely. I'm personally getting tired of hearing you think that your "4 arrows" argument holds any validation in regards to FPS games. It simply isn't a good argument to have to defend Shootmania.

As someone said below, why is it that people either get a supremely complex game like Quake, which suffers in population because of it, or a Fisher Price monstrosity of a game like Call of Duty, which has a huge population but has absolutely no eSport capabilities whatsoever? Here's an idea for developers... do your jobs. Create a complex game like Quake that has huge skill ceilings and make it your duty to figure out HOW new players can start to play with similarly skilled players and be able to excel PAST mediocrity if the time/effort is put into it; whether this be through a tier system, matchmaking protocols, etc.

What I would love as a competitive eSport FPS game, would be, pretty much the metagame of Quake, but with all the great spectator/mod/clarity from devs, aspects you're adding to Shootmania. I'd love Quake 5, but I'm also realistic. Put your own spin on the game but don't dumb it down and think it'll be a success.

Firefall is an example of this now. They wanted to be and promoted it as an eSport title, but currently, due to the horribly low skill ceiling, it just won't succeed. However, now they've realized this and are completely revamping their system, so we'll see.

It is not an argument to defend shootmania, it is an argument to contradict people who say that you have to have complex controls to have a competitive game. It can be simple and deep.

And I will keep my answer simple. Yours look like an attack when you say: "do your jobs" We are doing it since more than 20 years for Id et 10 for us.

You're confusing controls/execution with mechanics and what said mechanics can lead to.
Most people will whine about the controls for the sake of whining but in the end, we're all concerned about the fact that your game's ( lack of ) mechanics don't seem to lead to anything.

I don't mean to be mean ( sic ) but if I didn't know you've been around for a while, I'd think you're one of those people who went to " game design " schools a few years ago. Pretty sure you get what I mean.

The game have been played by hundreds of people already, people coming from the eSport competitive scene. So, it is sure I am less concerned by somebody that try to insult me by saying that I look to come from a game design school than from people in real life that are still playing the game everyday since weeks.

I have tried with some to bring arguments, but it quickly falls into assumptions. There are 100+ functions in the move code. I said from the start that simple can be deep and you still talk about the number of mechanics. What if a deeper rocket launcher existed? What if having gauges brings deeper mechanics?

I think you can be more positive and that you get what I mean as well.

The game have been played by hundreds of people already, people coming from the eSport competitive scene. So, it is sure I am less concerned by somebody that try to insult me by saying that I look to come from a game design school than from people in real life that are still playing the game everyday since weeks.

The only reason you feel insulted is because you feel I hit the spot.

There are 100+ functions in the move code.

I'm pretty sure mw3 has as many functions if not more. Quoting the lenght of your code as an argument proves the opposite.

What if having gauges brings deeper mechanics?

You just ruined your own point again. If you need that kind of gimmick to be slapped on top of your already existing perfect mechanism, your mechanism is doesn't work.

edit : looks like I caught frenglishitis again.

I apologize, I don't mean it as an attack but when I say "do your jobs", I'm venting the frustration of all, really. Why is it so hard to get a competitive game with some backing? The community has been extremely transparent and clear as to what we want, need, and how the community would easily take over and flourish the community itself as long as it had <insert plethora of esport modifications>.

I will say that Quake wasn't complicated when it comes to controls, it was complicated because of the choices it gave you. Removing weapons is NOT the way. Let's face it, Quake weaponry, as a base, is simple. There's no alt fire, there's no changes to dynamics based on anything... the railgun shoots like a railgun, the rocket launcher shoots like a rocket launcher, etc. Simple controls but the game gave you options. Should I use plasma in this tight corridor, risk missing and getting a rocket to the face, or hit every single ball and laugh in my enemy's face?

I think Shootmania CAN succeed IF the modding community gets free reign with your game, ie. guns, closed maps, physics, etc. Essentially, allow the community to build your eSport game for you.

People made CS and DOTA with SDKs, so I agree they can make things that are popular, but it is not really the type of game that are defended here. The question is to know how long it would have take for the community of DOTA or Warcraft 3 to make LoL or Starcraft gameplay wise? Is there boundaries that are difficult to overcome in a group?

I strongly believe in the power of the players, their creativity, diversity, sharing, communication, improvements, tweaking etc. But as being able to take decision to move everything in one direction with opposite short term interest, it is more difficult. It is a little like the common world, the economy etc. Some theory says that once a system is too complex, it only evolves with crisis.

looks like they're bringing shit on a silverplatter. we're just calling them out on it

Yes, we are scared of change of gameplay to slow and boring, that's correct.

I just don't get most of the logic "flying" around here. And it has been repeated for many many years now.
Why is having a high skill cap game mutually exclusive to a newbie friendly game? Why is it always one or the other?
If any game is falling at being a popular and competitive game it’s because it was either dumbed down and/or was made completely newbie unfriendly. The easiest solution as far as I can see is just to set up a proper ranking system similar to what blizzard has done with sc/wc.
Not saying that's a perfect solution, just saying that achieving both goals should be the prime guideline when developing a game.

From what little i have read about shootmania, they are levelling the playing field between expert players and casual players. Witch in my eyes isn't the solution. Better players should be rewarded for playing better, not handicapped. So instead of just randomizing the game outcome (that's a short sided strategy imo) an extra effort should be put in to introducing new players to the game and how to "help them along" to develop further while having fun.

my 2c

let us see how long stermy can stand to play it (:

might not be an hardcore complex fps like quake or ut, but given the state of the current fps scene (EVERYTHING IS DEAD AROUND HERE), this is exactly what we need to get back in the map...

ur right its sad though my hopes are on tribes its doing very well in america

any plans on adding a LG?

Hi Strenx :D

LG

lg please?

I signed up for the beta. Just to see what all the fuss is about. But from the videos I have seen, it looks pretty boring and simple. But who knows.

4 arrow competitive esport, I've read that 4 arrow thing in a few of his posts. That was a racing game, where pros just have to learn a track, learn the car physics and do it a lot of times (this should be just the 'getting started'). FPS games have real interaction between players, that's why every game is different, cos not everybody takes the same decisions ingame, not everyone uses weapons the same way or else, you can appreciate gamestyles and you can even see gamers personality on their game, like a real sport
.
Archieving deep from the simple he said, i thought quake was doing that!

I'm not sure whether quake pro's are superhumans and there are only a few of them, or just there's not enough money to keep a big competitive community. In tennis we always see the same faces on tv, however the no.160 of the world is incredibly good skilled. What i want to say is that, if u make an easy game where everybody can be good, of course there's gonna be competition, just the top tiers will be more crowded than in other games but many players wont get to know their limits.

So yeah, if i ever get to be a dad, i'll be watching what my children play and i'll say good old times, quake4evah, if so many people are unsure and whining about these new games is because they know that quake is the real deal when it comes to fps.

You have to admit they are doing everything right to bring it into the esports scene. Even though I'm a Quake Live fanatic and would rather see a more skillful game in that position it seems like shootmania will be very popular. At any rate, we should be able to own everyone in the game from our quake experience :)))

looks like crap with crap on it.

said this in a different thread but it applies to this one too:
---
some people are as good as these "pros" but don't exactly give two shits about the whole esports scene especially since it barely exists in North America. A lot of very high caliber players will have to wait for release and then catch up to the "pros" as usual :|

They should let in people who truly love gaming and FPS gaming, guys who make teams and shit and like supporting the community... Not people who view it as a job/profession and will jump to the next game in heartbeat if it has more prize money.
---

Also I have a gut feeling SM will turn out exactly like TM2: pretty popular in France & Germany and maybe a few other small European countries but largely forgotten everywhere else in the world pretty quickly :x Just a gut feeling.

sounds like u are referring to DHS? anyway yeah you are right! enjoy ur big fat [+]

if its somewhat enjoyable and has a decent size community i'll play it

Will you enjoy both of the weapons used in this game?

nah probably only one or the other, 2 is way too much for me