I will repeat that again, you have on your hands the most entertaining 1on1 Mode in the history of e-sport.

lol

You can answer as well!

those respawn and cess enemy with mg days are over

most entertaining 1on1?

No.

What's more entertaining to watch a QuakeCon final like 2016 Rapha vs Evil?

I'm not talking about playing it, but watching.

Most finals weren't nearly as exciting as that. Tons of boring quakelive/q3 finals. Also, if rapha and evil didn't have brain farts at the worst time, those matches would have just been very good, but forgotten.

And in spite of all you mention, yet it is still the most entertaining 1on1 mode to spectate.

2010 cooller-cypher
2012 dahang-cypher
2014 cypher-dahang
2016 evil-rapha

All of these were incredible finals. One out of two, really memorable. I suppose it's not that bad.

Agree. Keep champs, remove rounds.

Would rather play Q4.

did qc fuck your bitch or something? the hate seems personal.

He just prefers the much better game, nothing to see here.

have you tried militia?

+1 keep champs remove rounds

or at least make it 5 min rounds with no fraglimite

We'd need smaller maps too, because with those gigantic maps you can hide for minutes.

Sure we can't play on aerowalk-sized maps only, but we need a fair share of small maps, medium maps and big maps as well.

I want to watch Evil do 3 spawnkills in a row again.

smaller maps and round system --> 20 secs matches.
size is ok, small/large depends by champ speed too.

Without rounds and fraglimits of course. The big maps are the smallest problem now

rounds system helps in the beginning with no matchmaking, being raped 3-0 x 2 by pros is different than 30/40-0 in 10mins ql :D

I know, but when there will be matchmaking I hope they get rid of it.

after we get the "classic" game modes/ gameplay, they can turn the champions into pokemon go style shit or whatever popular crap they want. it will be just a game mode i wont be playing.

till then, everyone suggesting anything else can fuck right off

I agree with your conclusion, but still it has to be said:


1.- You are assuming duel will be the main competitive gametype. I don't think it will. For example it's been hinted many times that Quakecon will have both Sacrifice and Duel, on the same terms.


2.- Please only have one 1v1 gametype. No "classic" and "new" modes separately, and certainly no custom servers. Stop splitting the playerbase once again.

Successful games have only one main gametype in the whole game. CS, OW, LoL, Dota, etc.; all. In Quake both the devs and the players always want to have a million gametypes and not focus into developing one well, so no wonder all end up underdeveloped, no wonder the prize pools in tournaments tend to be so small (split) and no wonder they have so few viewers since very few play all modes (90% of people play CA and the tournaments feature a mode played by less than the 5%).

To the very least if the game is going to have multiple gametypes then then have only one per type, instead of like right now in which even in the closed beta stage you have TDM competing with Sacrifice, and what's on the works internally is making duel-only maps, which is a waste of resources since they could be making maps for all gametypes.


3.- Given fighting games and Starcraft are 1v1 games that are 10x more popular than Quake in terms of players and viewers, then people find them more entertaining than Quake.

Also fighting games have a longer history than Quake, both in terms of years and especially in terms of being active. Quake's competitive scene has been almost dead since 2013 (last year with two tournaments a year), whereas fighting games today have dozens of Quakecon-level tournaments each year.

I say this because people here always suggest 1v1 on gaming is a niche. Guess what, it's one of the biggest competitive scenes out there, but just not on FPS games. Certainly not a niche. People that want that 1v1 experience go to fighting games, and since it's a so healthy scene already they won't switch to Quake.

Plus in FPS games in particular people have always preferred to play in teams anyway, so duel doesn't have much potential in terms of having an actual playerbase. In QL there used to be a community site (maybe still active?) that showed the activity of the game as a whole, and duel never had more than 5% of the players. That means in the last Quake game even when 90% of the tournaments featured duel still that being the case didn't make more people play duel.


4.- If id wants to have any success with QC they should focus in what's the popular gametype today, which is team modes with champs and objectives. Focusing on classic Quake duel is suicidal.

Without a decently sized playerbase the game will die and the competitive scene will become boring fast. That's what you are going to get if you once again push duel to the sky, in terms of it enjoying a ton of duel-only focused development and being the gametype of choice to show the game: The same that happened in QL, a playerbase of a thousand players.

They should focus in what brings people in from other games, such as LoL and OW, not in what 50 people play today. I'm not saying to turn Quake into LoL or OW, but to at least offer them a similar main gametype in terms of it being team based and objective based, and that gametype (what they play) is the only one used in tournaments.

It's like....doesn't id just take a look at stats before deciding what becomes a priority in development and what's on tournaments? The first and most important stat is the playerbase.

1. I don't think that too. Didn't assume duel was the main competitive (it's not), but it has a lot more potential then TDM or CTF in the competitive scene.

2. Absolutely. I would have killed simple deathmatch as well to follow this line of thinking.

3. To play fighting games are more entertaining. But not to watch.

I agree about the rest!

3: are you sure?

in ql stats the most played mode was CA, then ffa or duel and then ctf and last tdm, if I remember correctly. I remember for sure that I was surprised of how few tdm and ctf games were played. tdm was almost dead and there were posts here encouraging ppl to play it. At the same time, you could duel all day with no problem. So, I find weird what you said, except if with team games you mean CA, which in QC is more close to duel than to the other modes (which is no good btw).

ur other points are not convincing, at least to me. Like for example, where u mention the success of other 1v1 games, it makes you think more that this means that QC duel could also be a huge success if promoted correctly, but u use it as an argument of the opposite...

imo there is nothing that compares to watching a duel in ql, is so awesome and easy to spec, which alone was reason enough for having tourneys on a game with no player base. Secondly, duel is something that the competition (other fps games) doesn't have, or it doesn't have as good as quake. For example a colleague in work plays OW, loves it, but hates the fact that he always has to be in a team that needs to coordinate in order to fully enjoy it. When I told him, that in QC you don't need to always play in a team (u can play duel or ffa), he was excited. I can say a ton more, like big prices (since you don't need to split it in 4 or 5), the excitement to find out who is the best in the game (who is the best in OW?) etc.

and what about the fans? how I can be a fan of a team, when they are constantly changing line up? There are fans of cooller, rapha, cypher, evil... and cooller will always be cooller, he can't suddenly become rapha.

Yes, I agree that you need a big player base and team modes (like CA in QL) are your tools, but when it comes to specing, duel is the best. We don't have to watch the paint dry in the wall, because that is what brings players to the game, we have duel. The other games, have no choice, they only have team modes and thus, they play team modes and unfortunately is the only thing they can watch too. Don't tell me you are exited to watch LOL, CS or OW. They are not exiting to watch, they just have huge player bases, like u very correctly mentioned and some of them want to see how good players play.

All those are good points.

Just trying to find an explanation as to why Q3/QL duel never really took off. Like, why is that fighting games (1v1) are one of the trendiest genres in tournaments today, but FPS duel is so unpopular?

I agree watching CA is horrible. The thing is the most popular gametype should be the competitive gametype. Id really should look at the internal stats in order to focus its development time into something people do play, in order to make it more fun to play and watch, and to decide what mode is going to be featured in tournaments.

> as to why Q3/QL duel never really took off.

That's easy. At least, part of the answer is easy regarding fps duel, that is.

When you get fucking trounced in a duel, there is no one to blame but yourself. Just like in Chess(comparing the 1v1'ness of it, not the gameplay styles or whatever).

Have you played any team-based fps the last many years? When your team loses, it's literally 3(or 4) other people screaming at each other and taking no blame upon themselves. That's a big reason why.

There is no one, at all, to blame when you lose a duel and most fps gamers absolutely can not handle having no one to blame or carry them when they just suck.

Then how fighting games are so big nowadays?

Or how about Starcraft, back in Q3's days?

> At least, part of the answer is easy regarding fps duel, that is.

I don't really know for sure, honestly, regarding fighters and RTS games and that's why I made sure to say that I felt like *part* of that answer was easy, perhaps I was not correct but I really do feel like that is a large part of the QL-specific answer lies. New players come, try duel, get their shit kicked in for an hour, quit or try CA, etc.

Also, at least where SC2 is concerned, there is an official competitive ladder(as well as shitloads of fun mods that are completely free, all you do is DL them in the game interface so maybe that helps some? Though, from what I understand, even SC2 numbers are not at all like in its initial expac. I'm happy to be corrected about that part, though).

In SC2, you know you will never be forced into a game with some 2k+ elo account if you are a new or just bad player(not counting smurfing, just basic ladder, lowbies don't really deal with smurfs much back when I played it). That's another big part. You know you at least have a chance to win a relatively fair game, skillwise and don't have to know eight thousand different build orders just to survive past 5 minutes in the early game. That definitely keeps people coming back, I believe.

In QL duel, good luck with that, if you can even find a game with someone willing to play you. =(

---
> Id really should look at the internal stats in order to focus its development time into something people do play

I forgot to ask this in my first reply::

Which mode out of Duel, TDM, CTF and CA do you suppose would be their choice, if they did that? I'm not being a smart-ass with that question, either. I'm actually curious.

The thing is duel itself is not doomed to fail, if implemented well.

The most popular gametype in QL so far is either FFA or TDM. We can tell that based on activity on the already practically dead server locations (yep there are already), in which sometimes the game says there's nobody playing Sacrifice and Duel ar given times.

If they looked at the stats then they would realize Sacrifice is dead on arrival, so that they should either change something major about it (like mod specific maps) or just scrape it and introduce another gametype as main competitive mode. Could be something existing like TDM or CTF (that's the next mode to be added), or something new. I'd prefer new yet cliche, like straight up bomb (CS), since everybody knows the recipe to make it fun.

> The thing is duel itself is not doomed to fail, if implemented well.

Are you referring to the new QC 'duel' with 3 champions and a maximum of 3 frags per round? Or do you mean a QC version of duel with things the way they are now in QL? Personally, I would very much prefer the way it is right now and with zero champions. A duel world where your 'character' is the same as your enemy's. I don't mind updated maps, of course, as long as they are nice maps. I think there is nothing wrong with the 'basic' way that duel has been for 20 years.

As for FFA, I would actually enjoy seeing tournaments of FFA. I've been playing it a fair bit lately in QL and find it enjoyable. I think it'd be really fun to see, say, 4 players in a map(nothing insane like unranked pubs or w/e with 8 people). Each group of 4 would play 3 different maps, they could tally the scores across all 3 maps and the top 2 of each group could advance to the next groups of 4 until only one group of 4 remained and they could place 1-4 for prize money based on total scores after 3 maps.

Something like that. Maybe not exactly that way but it seems fun to me as a player and as a viewer. Maybe my idea sucks and I just don't know yet cause I don't have it but what we have now for QC doesn't look very appealing to me. I didn't add anything about TDM because that seems pretty straight forward.

All that said, in my opinion no matter what they do there must absolutely be a working ladder rank system or noobs will tell every friend they have that the new quake sucks and ESR will still be playing Quake Live. No stats. No stat whoring. Just you and a rank and opponents at one's level where no one curb stomps other players into hating QC.

"where no one curb stomps other players into hating QC"

Was just thinking about that.


To roflstomp. )

Yeah, well, with a nicely made ladder system, that won't be possible except in the very beginning while the ranking system is still figuring out where to put people.

Are they? I'm seriously asking, are they as big as dota, csgo & ow?

No, but their tournaments are 10x more successful than any Quake tournament ever held, in terms of players, viewers and amount of events per year.

Well it's not that relevant then. It would have been if we had 100K, but we have what - 1, 2K? Team games seriously dwarf 1v1s. Even in real sports. And those are the ones where you don't really have to have a big number of players to be spectators. But at least for now in esports the majority of the spectators are players themselves. And as flocks said duel does not do them good to continue playing. It is genuinely the egomaniacs mode - and I do mean mode, not game.

If we have 1k then it is 100x. They are drawing that many viewers and players.

You said 10x, not 100x.

QL got 10,000 viewers at its peak, being the greatest draw Arena FPS games ever had. That's the number I had in mind when saying fighting games today are 10x bigger. But if you have in mind the current number of 1,000, which is neither the highest nor the lowest, then it is 100x

The thing is fighting games are getting 100,000 viewers since last year (Quake today draws 1,000 tops), have 100 Quakecon-level tournaments (there's only one event of that size left here and that's Quakecon) and some fighting games have over 2,000 participants each (Quakecon 2017 duel had 29 participants).

And I say all this to say fighting games are 1v1 games. The duel format is not necessarily the main cause as to why Quake is unpopular, when other duel games are 100x more popular than Quake duel.

As an offtopic really, I think the cause of Quake's demise is that the franchise has been left to die by id software since 1999. It's not the gameplay nor the formats or anything specific like that, but just a lack of budget and lack of work from the main id software team. Quake4 was a rushed outsourced project, QL was a mere experiment developed by mostly two people (none of them a programmer) and using Q3's assets, and QC is outsourced to a Russian company that makes 7/10 games (abyssmal rating for games) and just by looking at the game it's clear QC is yet another low budget project (horrible graphics and overall assets). Doom 3, Rage and Doom 4 are the only games id software itself has produced since 1999, and they haven't made themselves a Quake game since 18 years ago and still counting. No wonder Quake is dead, without having a real successor in all this time.

That I can agree with but I still think in a world where id was competent and motivated to develop quake as an esport game it would have chosen a team mode.

What are you talking about?



You can blame the opponent. Or packet loss. Or fps-drops. Or your fucking elephant who climbed onto your lap while you set up the crucial and flawless trap at MH.



C'mon.

The only way to blame opponent is if they're cheating. Otherwise, gg outplayed.

Also, your post spacing is a little crazy.

You can blame your opponent's "luck". :D

My man.

Luck != opponent.

Stop being pedantic.

I think it is you who is being pedantic by singling out just one of the things he said you can blame in the event you lose a duel. Either way, luck is yet another thing you can blame, whether you consider it an attribute of your opponent or not, along with your hardware, your internet, his internet, the netcode, that you were "tired", hadn't eaten, hadn't jerked off, had jerked off, etc, etc.

You can also blame your opponent for using a cheesy or annoying style of play that in your mind, you could have beaten if you were willing to stoop to playing the way that is needed to beat it.

Good ctf and tdm games were always hard to put together. CA usually you could just jump in a server or two anytime and find some ok action.

For example I loved ctf and could barely stand ca but in the end I started playing ca just because it didn't take any effort to jump into a game.

Also OW is exciting to watch imo. I only enjoying watching a few teams (that i am a fan of) but that's kinda the way I was with sports teams so...

With OW, you have to get used to it. It helps to watch the player icons and kill feed. Once you get good at watching you'll know when to look at what.

Interesting points made in this post. I agree id should focus on "what brings people in from other games" and on "not splitting player base". I think however, having multiple game modes doesn't automatically mean it will "split" player base in a way it would be a problem for popularity of the game it self.

Like imagine a lot of people, who will play recreationally, usually they will plyer few matches, and most probably they will choose deathmatch. Shoot anything that moves, a lot of fun. Now, same guys could be very much interested in watching pro's playing duel and/or 4v4. "Those pros play basically the same game, they just have different objective in "their" game mode. Lets see how well they play compared to me."

100% agreed about modes, i'd say 3 modes would be perfect.

Deathmatch (FFA) Unranked, the for the lulz mode, good for stress free practice and warmup, easy to understand (kill anything that moves)

Duel - Ranked 1v1

Sacrifice - Ranked 4v4

Thats it.

TDM even better. I find it really better and less chaotic than simple DM.

Why? We don't need an entirely new game to satisfy the 11 people in #tdmpickup and that's exactly what it would turn in to.

No shit when only half of the players are shooting at you. Back to reddit and slasher.

I saw streams of pro players. Cooller, Agent, Rapha, Cypher, Toxjc. Everyone of them said the same things about this mode, no one like it.

Ye, it's clear. Hope Id Sofware is not that stupid to keep it.

I fear they will just double the fraglimit and gg to all.

I agree with your main conclusion but I think the reason they have the rounds is because of the champions.

But perhaps if after you die, you can select another champion and that would work just fine... So keep the 10 minute no frag limit, and just give option to switch it up before you spawn. Don't see why that wouldn't be worth trying. I guess they're afraid people would just stick with the same hero but so what? If everyone is playing Ranger, for example, then buff the other heros a little in patches until you have heros that counter each other nicely.


Also I'd love to see someone do an experimental Escort mod with Quake. I know it would be a rip off of OW but who cares. Escort with quake movement, gameplay and speed might work nicely. Or might not. But when I watch escort I find it to be a cool game mode because the terrain changes as the cart moves along the map and a bunch of other reasons.

Different pro players use different characters.

When you see people are choosing only a character, well, that's an indicator you should balance your damn game.

I don't see this problem now, though, so it's pretty balanced in a way right now.

If we talk about duel then there must be only one king of the hill, not 3. One champion looks natural.

There is an article in the law "imposing services", punishable by law. 3 champion is the imposition of services.

StarCraft BW show the beautiful example. It were long war between races.

If i promoder then i love Anarki and i want play only him. I want to prove that promode is best.

Well, you can use just one champion if you'd like. Only you need to have the possibility to swap in case the match is not going well. You have different champions, the game is all about this, you may need to switch if your opponent counters you too much.

Oldschool quaker here... just chiming in with a suggestion:

Why not make it 15 minute time limit like the good old days and then you use your first champion pick for the first 5 minutes, your second champion pick for minutes 5-10 and then your third champion pick for minutes 10-15.

That way the champion pick system will be honored while also keeping the flow of old and allowing for the possibility of amazing comebacks (I think 15 minutes is better for this than 10 minutes).

Do a 10 second countdown in the HUD corner before each champion transformation. Spectators will have something "extra" to look forward to every 5 minutes as they will be curious about how the players adapt mid-game with new champions.

From what I've seen, the new round-based system totally ruins the flow of the game.

In my opinion, 15 minutes is too much.

10 minutes is the perfect balance:
- Comeback possible
- Reverse map control possible
- Not stressful to play and to watch
- You can play or watch a lot of maps being played (variety is important).

It would be good to just choose 2-3 champions and then go for it. When you feel you should change because the match is not going well, you just change it and keep it until the end.

It add some more tactics and give you a new edge to challenge the enemy.

I think 10 minutes is more stressful because if you get a bad start, it's very hard to come back. It's easy to keep map control for 7 minutes. It's much harder to do it for 10+.

10 minutes is probably better for spectators though.

Ye for spectators is definitely better.

Anyway 10 minutes allow you to play up to 7 maps, so you can demonstrate you are the best regardless of one bad start. A lot of variety comes with that.

12 mins maybe, like 3X4

or if they want to keep it really short 9mins 3x3

yea, I agree 15 is too much.

Round system = coitus interruptus. :D

QC probably the most out of the gates (beta) ready Quake to date

Siege mode

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e8HwWQoRBm4

sounds good and unique

NT fucking F