Brethren. If put into a real life battle, Quake players would be the first to die. While I realize video games aren't reality, seeing a complete disregard to the realities of war in competitive clan wars should bring tears to the spectating eyes of all who are above 12 years of age. And while Counter-Strike leaves much to be desired in the areas of movement, atrocious bullet spread, and boring gameplay, its players are correct in viewing Quake players as little girly men.
The only thing impressive about prancing around like a ballerina on crystal meth is how crisp the technology makes the movement look. Now I can understand that it takes skill to pull off some of this crap (like prediction rockets etc...) in a 1v1 competitive deathmatch environment, but it has no place in a team game like Enemy Territory. Just because they share the same engine doesn't mean that it's still deathmatch. Sure you can still speed strafe, tap crouch, trick jump, and use twitchy, high sens aim, but it looks juvenile and silly to an ever maturing audience of gamers. Especially considering you don't have to play like this in order to be succesful. I believe this is even more true in clan wars where teamwork is essential.
My children. Now we have a gaming environment where camping is frowned upon and playing like a headless chicken is considered courageous. Yet we all know that absolutely noone would be dumb enough to try this in a real life combat situation.
When I watch a clan war, I want to see due respect given to actual war. Otherwise, it just turns into a circus sideshow with no real appeal to masculine manS (pun intended). Oh how cute you euros can be lol. I understand that camping may prove to be inneffective in a public deathmatch setting due to lag and exploitable hitboxes, however, this can all be minimized with strong teamplay and tactics. Indeed, it is a prime opportunity (for those who are up to the challenge) to expose the ugly nature of the deathmatch style of play.
I also don't believe that focusing more on teamplay and tactics would make matches more boring. It's the way the game is designed that makes it inherently exciting to play and spectate. In fact, I think matches have the potential to be way more exciting and we have already taken the more boring route with small team sizes and "faster" maps. But whatever, it's too late now.
Brahs. Let us make decisions about our beloved game and community based on our game and community. Let us not be influenced by that atrocity of an illusion that is "professional gaming." This disgusting abomination has been exposed in a 2008 documentary entitled "Frag." Instead, you should focus your energies on entertaining me :p, your loyal spectator, and making the game more fun for the entire community.
I come to you has a hardcore gamer and as a spectator you people of Crossfire. I emplore you competitive clans to try and play a little more like you were in an actual battle and less like you are rabidly fighting over a stack of mousepads. Who among you is up to the challenge? Who will emerge as a divine champion of the internet and defeat the hitbox exploiters, hackers, and brood of vipers?
P.S. I'm and id Software fanboy as much as the next guy, but I really hate Quake deathmatch.
The only thing impressive about prancing around like a ballerina on crystal meth is how crisp the technology makes the movement look. Now I can understand that it takes skill to pull off some of this crap (like prediction rockets etc...) in a 1v1 competitive deathmatch environment, but it has no place in a team game like Enemy Territory. Just because they share the same engine doesn't mean that it's still deathmatch. Sure you can still speed strafe, tap crouch, trick jump, and use twitchy, high sens aim, but it looks juvenile and silly to an ever maturing audience of gamers. Especially considering you don't have to play like this in order to be succesful. I believe this is even more true in clan wars where teamwork is essential.
My children. Now we have a gaming environment where camping is frowned upon and playing like a headless chicken is considered courageous. Yet we all know that absolutely noone would be dumb enough to try this in a real life combat situation.
When I watch a clan war, I want to see due respect given to actual war. Otherwise, it just turns into a circus sideshow with no real appeal to masculine manS (pun intended). Oh how cute you euros can be lol. I understand that camping may prove to be inneffective in a public deathmatch setting due to lag and exploitable hitboxes, however, this can all be minimized with strong teamplay and tactics. Indeed, it is a prime opportunity (for those who are up to the challenge) to expose the ugly nature of the deathmatch style of play.
I also don't believe that focusing more on teamplay and tactics would make matches more boring. It's the way the game is designed that makes it inherently exciting to play and spectate. In fact, I think matches have the potential to be way more exciting and we have already taken the more boring route with small team sizes and "faster" maps. But whatever, it's too late now.
Brahs. Let us make decisions about our beloved game and community based on our game and community. Let us not be influenced by that atrocity of an illusion that is "professional gaming." This disgusting abomination has been exposed in a 2008 documentary entitled "Frag." Instead, you should focus your energies on entertaining me :p, your loyal spectator, and making the game more fun for the entire community.
I come to you has a hardcore gamer and as a spectator you people of Crossfire. I emplore you competitive clans to try and play a little more like you were in an actual battle and less like you are rabidly fighting over a stack of mousepads. Who among you is up to the challenge? Who will emerge as a divine champion of the internet and defeat the hitbox exploiters, hackers, and brood of vipers?
P.S. I'm and id Software fanboy as much as the next guy, but I really hate Quake deathmatch.
And to the topic, well I don't want to see any more camping in ET than there is already. I think the point of ET is to play it the way it's developed. If u want to see more realistic stuff, u should watch cod or something similar. But ET is good for what it is. And I can't really imagine any team trying to play "more realistically" just to entertain the spectators. That would be pretty ineffective in wars.
Anyway, it's good that ppl share their inputs and nice to hear alternative views :)
Basically he wants old ET back instead of cancershit we're stuck with.
And surely this is far from real war. But isn't the point to maximize the outcome in the game we are playing and not think about reality too much !
so true
I don't get it
- doesn't hit vital part of the brain
- doesn't penetrate through the cranium
- so much adrenaline you don't feel the pain
obviously happens 5% of the times :D
get decent face and muscles
But apparently I just didn't understand the point of your column.
Real war is the opposite of fun (except for the very sick)
-OR-
no no no no no no no no no
ET is a perfect team game in my eyes.
Not sure that the op is serious though...
I don't play video games for realism, the real world is more than real enough for me. I never heard anyone complain about Solitaire being unrealistic, or Monopoly not taking inflation into account. A game is what it is, and as a player you're supposed to do as well as possible within the framework the game sets for you.
And, playing as a headless chicken just happens to be so much more fun!
Stopped reading there.
watch cod4 match and realize ur simply playing thr wrong game.
your completely missunderstanding why people play this game. they do cause its fast paced and still tactics based,
stop /kill 'ing then.
what a crap column.
When I say respect the realities of war, I don't mean I want the game to be a real life simulator. All I'm saying is that I don't want to see people just running towards the next frag or death or slash kill. I'd like to see teams try and use more static defences and set up crossfires. Don't just kill out every spawn. And with this will come the need for better coordinated attacks. Not deathmatch.
I think you guys also misunderstand the engine of the game as being the "design" of the game. Just because it's really fast and you can trick jump etc... doesn't mean that you HAVE to play it as deathmatch. The only reason it seems to be more effective to you guys is because everyone plays that way and no one is challenging it. And of course the horrible 5 vs 5 format doesn't help either.
There's a difference between playing in an exciting, fast paced game and playing stupid. Reaction time and aim are not the end all be all of skill. Especially in a team game. And personally I think speed strafing and tap crouching are crutches for poor aim.
You are ranting about /kill but thats just part of ET and it adds a dimension to it's gameplay. if you dont like that, then you dont like ET which means as a humble spectator ":P" you should probably find another game to spectate.
also, players who are able to speed strafe and have a proper aim at the same time will be better overall than a player who just has the aim to go with... i disagree with you that speedstrafing isnt a skill you can accomplish in this game tbh :S
apart from that, good effort with the column though :D
Best example in Australia was when Adversus dominated Modus Operandi for a few season because demanufacturer wouldn't change his tactics to all his better aimers to be more aggressive.
Still sounds like you should be playing Day of Defeat or something more pedestrian than ET...
eh? he just wants to see ET get better. if you would now announce 1000000k€ ET tournament would u really think that clans would keep on playing same random aggro slashkill style as they do today? Or would teams like dignitas actually start playing like a real clan instead of random (still winning though) style they're today. There's so much room to get better and the fact we only have like 3 top clans every season is a proof that this random playstyle only works for the few.
To be honest the only time you see new tactics that make a difference is via someone like Night. Just look at the most recent 5v5 lan he was at (AEF? or maybe last CF lan) he changed things up a bit and they dominated.
Just playing "smart" more often and not rushing all the time.
Being 5 seconds away from losing the final and then winning two maps after a powercut enabled them to get past a defense they were stuck at? DOMINATION! They didn't change shit up we just played like retards in the final two maps due to rage/team morale/whatever. They lost to TMOE because they thought they could get away with playing like ass and the poles barnfarmed them because of it.
I don't doubt Night has the "ability" (ropfl) to change up his teams tactics, but that has nothing to do with them winning CC7.
I know that whole lan was a tough one for you but in actual fact I was hoping you guys would win because the main of that line-up (wing, maus, clown) have been through probably more lan/tournament heart ache then their all of their successes.
That final was complete lotto bullshit (well could have put more pressure on their re-spawn but you all ran blindly for the cap) and I would be just as upset as you should some "night fanboi" make a comment about how they dominated etc.
But yeah those guys definitely deserved the victory and as much as I feel I let them down when it happened, Clown did make the point that if it wasn't for me they wouldn't have had the docs in that position in the first place.
Na'Vi isn't the best individual team out there right now, the only thing they do different than the rest is their dynamic gameplay with scouting and on-the-go position swapping. Which is exactly what the OP attacks in this column.
lol
Then you should probably campaign for the return of 6on6 because you will never see this in 5on5.
If you truly want to encourage teams to reduce the amount teams selfkill, implement a respawn limit on the defending side, perhaps even instead of a time limit on the game (although this does set up a situation where the attackers might play for kills rather than the objective). It's actually a tricky question in games with an integral respawn mechanic. I'll think about it some more.
I'm not complaining about slash kill being in the game. I'm just complaining about people using it excessively with no thought to map position.
Strafing is a skill. But again. There's a time to do it. Most players rely on it way too much imo. Most people who have good aim and tap crouch at the same time will also have an advantage but I'd hardly consider that being a better shooter.
high skilled teams dont play it as deathmatch. they have strats and positions for crossfire, strong defense. the thing ur pointing (playing as headless chicken) is sometimes seen in low skilled teams. and thats what makes the difference between a high "skilled" team/players and low skilled.
/kill ing is an element of this game. using it on the right time gives u benefit, time it wrong and ur gone. theres no way u can say its excessively used or used without any reason. In this game, if u have to b a good shooter then u dont need just a nice aim, u need all skills - strafing, aim, teamplay, and blah and blah and another blah.
That might be the case now but lets think about some of the default maps. Railgun? Battery? Oasis? And what about Sub for RtCW? Close spawn to obj. :p In general, ET maps (the default ones anyway) are larger and have more "phases." So even if the final objective on SOME maps is close to the defender's spawn, the attacking team still had to cover a lot of ground to finally make it there.
You're right about the maps we have now though. That's actually one of the main points I made in one of my comments. That and player numbers. They've simply been butchered to accomodate deathmatchers and make for faster rounds. It's clear from the original maps though that a large number of players and tactics was the goal.
But I mean yeah you're right. With how horrid all the settings and maps are now. It probably is impossible to use that style of play. ET now is just a unique form of deathmatch. My spectating experience has been ruined.
Really don't get what's wrong with having tactics based on the way the game is structured - if you want something different play a round based game.
Spawn camping should be something that is hard to achieve. A reward for well coordinated attacks. I don't want to see maps where Axis don't even have a chance to get set up before Allies are already all over them (adlernest for example). I want to see maps with multiple phases (old goldrush and oasis). And I want at least 6 v 6. I don't want a different game.
Oh and stopwatch does have rounds. :p
You realize that in other games when someone pushes out and kills all five players from the enemy team alone he is celebrated as a hero who did an ace?
This is just stupid. I'm sure that's exactly how you win in ET. You outkill the enemy and you win.
It isn't an ace in ET? It sure is a game changer. Although it sure is cheapened in ET, especially in 5v5, when your ace man is some nerd whos memorised how to put a roflnade on every spot on a map. At least in these "other games" you probably had to gun down all 5 enemies.
This is irrelevant though because ET is going for that battle feel. Not deathmatch or some small scale special ops.
Oh common. :p
Supply first stage is a good example how to fail easily due not committing player or two for the static defensive positions.If thats the way to go on, then please do. If we lose a stage because we're too static instead then whats the difference?
They like losing instead of trying something different?
It also can decrease the stress
Same as with more static play, it works until it works. Same time you're opening your defence all the time. Its like you're almost forced to go aggressive as long as someone fucks up. Is that the ideal thing you think we're all came up to?
Really, just think about it. You said you have not seen any static defences. Then there's still always a loser in every match. Why keep playing like that if you're losing anyway? Why play with something what doesnt win you games. And this doesnt mean everyone should just try "going to static" but more like to think what they're doing. Theres points to be aggressive and defensive. For lesser skilled team it should be more defensive cause its the only way they can win. Makes sense? Why you would be praccing to beat skillwise the same level opponents when you should aim beat the better ones?
for anyone else its 2 day praccing and you've adapted to it
I have been playing this game for many years. I even won a cute little ET league in NA. I also pub this game practically every day. I have just as much of a right to analyze this game as you do. You may as well tell coaches, trainers, and commentators that they don't have a right to comment on their respective sports either. It makes about as much sense.
If by wishing it goes back to the way it was in 2005 you mean a 6v6+ format and more teamplay and tactics then yes.
Yeah when there is a large and thriving community. Otherwise it stagnates an dies. In general players today are better fraggers. But I'm not so much talking about individual fragging ability as I am about the game as a whole and playing as a team. This isn't Quake or deathmatch. The format, settings, maps, teamplay, etc... These things have devolved in my opinion.
If teams got crushed today for using a static defense it would have a lot more to do with the format than the "tactics of today." It's closer to team deathmatch now than anything that would require tactics.
I know it has nothing to do with teamplay because there's so very little of it. It's the 5 vs 5 format and crappy maps among other things. This has been pointed out a million times already. I doubt I'll appreciate anything with "snake" in the title lol.
And just watch the movie, here is the link http://www.crossfire.nu/?x=movie&mode=item&id=1157
You mean it's obvious you're trolling now. You can't argue my points so you resort to ad homenim attacks. Half of the team left a long time ago. The other half, one of whom I still talk to, doesn't like me. And I'm not too fond of them either. Good job trying to bring this up troll. It does nothing to further your argument.
I've been playing RtCW since 2002 as well, albeit not competitively, except for a minor stint in oltl lol. Look my team won the biggest league in NA when competition was at its peak not after the game died. As a player, I know the ins and outs of the game. I think I can offer at least a little bit of insight. But keep saying my arguments are completely invalid instead of actually arguing my points.
I don't live in a fanboy dream world. Watching a frag movie isn't going to show me anything I can't see by analyzing matches.
e:If your "static" tactics were more effective, we would see them now. Why? Cuz better tax, better chances to win. Many low teams begin with static tactic. Why do they change then?
PS:This is the worst column ever. I mean.. You want to change game without any REAL reason.
I think it would be cod/cs players ! (especially snipers)
spawnbased, fast-paced, teamplay, etc..
If you want real combat go to Medal of Honor or smth, thats more realistic.
Et isnt realistic so what?
And +1 to the 6o6 and more maps with phases like grush & oasis. Oasis is just fucking awesome, dont get why its not played.
ET isn't realistic, it isn't meant to be, not many games are actually 100% realistic unless you go for military sims like Flashpoint.
I personally think it's more fun to play this way too.
the main thing is to be involved all the time, camping in one spot doesn't allow for this
true you need to camp sometimes, but in those situations your teammates should be moving to back you up
but i think more should be done to make et as enjoyable to watch as it is to play, that point i agree on
It may be more effective now because of the reasons I've already gone over. Everything about competitive ET these days caters to deathmathers. From the low number of players on a team to the maps. I'm just saying I don't think ET was meant to be played this way. And again, my argument isn't as much about realism (i.e. physics) as it is about playing like your current life is important and your position on the map is important.
The majority of your time on defence should be spent camping forcing your enemy to come to you. Playing aggressively is for the atacking team. And by camping I don't mean hiding in a corner where you can't see what's going on (although there are obviously going to be times where this will be smart). I mean static positions where all your teammates are in line of sight of key areas of the map. And this is just as very basic starting point, of course I'm not saying the defending team can't leave their position ever lol.
I dunno if it's possible now in 5 v 5, but I still think a high skilled team is capable of making other high skilled teams pay for playing deathmatch (i.e. stupid!) with a little bit of effort and teamwork. I sure would like to see it anyway. :D
Anyway, thanks to all who are arguing my points for trying to decode my wall of text. :]
It takes way more team ability and skill to co-ordinate attacks and offensive defence based on a spawn time.
Additionally a dynamic defence is more likely to succeed compared to a static one. (Not to mention alot more entertaining for players and spectators)
Could you please un-install all of your internet browsers so nobody has to endure this drivel ever again.
You mean spawn camping.
By dynamic you mean charging full speed at the attacking team, killing out for respawn, repeat.
Wow so skilled.
Yes, I did use static defenses with my old team from two years ago. Guess why I don't do it anymore?
Seriously, get some brain instead of trying to defend that retarded OP...
As far as I can read, you've still not understood anything. Why would you think OP is retarded? :D
we should add oasis n other maps back in the reason ET is just stuck is cause we only play the same maps all over again withe the same taxs, there is no evolution in ET these days, for example everytime u ask to play some new map, lets say erdenberg every one is like NO NO NOT THAT SHIT MAP unfair etc... What was grush bank stage back in the days? still teams can fullhold grush even if they loose tank on first push. Ppl wont play "new" maps cause they're boring cause they cant play them.
Its kinda like playing cod on computer then u go on console and play the same game, its not fun cause u know u can play better on the computer or another map. In the ET community these days everythings gotta be perfect else it goes in the bin.. Perfect = rutines etc, rutines = liniar, liniar = no suprises or excitement.
Most ppl seem to belive that Perfect is the goal, while we know that the abstract figures can be amazing together.
Played all CoDs on the PC, playing Black Ops on the PS3 now. I'll tell you it's a lot of fun to learn new aim systems and dynamics and focus more on positioning and surprising the enemy than simply raping everybody because you play ET competitive and there's pretty much no one out on the publics who can outaim you.
Kind hard in 5on5. Last year the meta-game was still evolving even with the same maps, there were teams like SNB and MM who were challenging the top and bringing lots of fresh ideas into the game. Seriously though, it just can't be done in 5on5, there isn't room for error. The team with the least errors (and the best spawntimes) are now those that are victorious.
- The move from RTCW-inspired panzerfaust-centric gameplay to the medic-heavy strategy employed by DSky and dignitas/mythology.
- Timed area-denial artillery barrages with multiple field ops, once the XP caps were introduced (there was actually a general slide over the course of a few years from airstrikes to arty as the primary function of fops).
- The introduction of the riflenade as a functional weapon in clan games - it went from a novelty weapon nobody used to a role that no team could be without over the course of about a month.
- As mentioned above, the most famous - moving from internal crossfire-based defense to external push out and kill defense.
- Introduction and (forced) removal of both MG and mortar strategies.
I disagree, there are quite a few maps/stages where if you have the right players you can rape without rifle (which is an example of meta-game change), especially since the move to 5on5. Even in 6on6 though, we never used a rifle on bremen and we were pretty much untouchable there.
You mention the change in static to push-out defenses which is true, but on some maps it was still very calm. Radar and Bremen in particular would really punish you if you tried mass push-out selfkill, and even to some extent now radar still does. Radar still needs strategy from the attacking side which except for goldrush tank stage I just don't think there is any anymore. This makes 5on5 increasingly dull.
Yeah, 5on5 sucks and is killing the very idea of a meta-game.
nice one
Since this column made little sense, I'll just reply to what other people commented. Making medics only able to heal teammates would be awesome, no lean and back to 6on6 would make ET more exciting.
I'll bet you after ten minutes you'll be gone because you can't heal yourself.
These recent (i.e. 2009 to today) changes in the configs are just so retarded I'm without words. Why isn't there someone with half a brain deciding about this stuff?
But oh well, at the moment I'm quite content being the ineffective and useless dick who jumps around the map with a sniper and takes many fullspawns. It's really the only exciting thing in this game any more ;__;
...............................................
Fullspawn excites you?
Besides, I wasn't being completely serious. Except for the part that it's really the only exciting thing about this game any more.
watch i didn't say IT'S REALISTIC but at least u kill with less bullets and the hitboxes are bigger so they help who has a higher ping.
One of worst thing in et is the hit system.
When it was vanilla it was easier hit. With promod it's complicated especially with those snaps 20 that are the lag and the antilag shitsistem that works on a selective way.
my 2 cent
Much weapons, you can play some exciting story.. etc.
Easy gameplay.. every noob can play cod and get few kills, unlike css or so.
Not everything i mentioned is relevent.. but if you compare all stuff with ET.. ofc it will be played more.
BUT, talking about COD is more successful..
well..
Modern Warfare 2 was successful 1 year, now not really much people play it anymore.
Unlike ET which is still popular for years.
But comparing cod to ET sucks imo..
It's comparing an old car which is still running with some new one and saying the new car is more popular.
But ye.. the engine of ET and COD is not that different, so COD feels bit like ET and COD on PC is not difficult after playing ET. :p
et is played cause it's free
and anyways, cod is best seller even if it costs from 50 up to 60 euros.
And mw2 is not played anymore cause there are no dedicated servers and cause cod 6 is out.
Plus cod4 is more played than et. Ask yourself why :)
Apart from gameplay and style - reasons (less skill required, rewards that are easy to earn, "realistic" atmosphere) COD is more successful simply because IW and Activision made more of it then ID ever did with RtCW. A new part released every 1-2 years, a growing fanbase and more money for advertising over time went a long way.
ID had a great and successful game with RtCW on the pc in 2001 and on the xbox in 2003, but failed to come up with good sequels. Otherwise RtCW could be where CoD is now...
Instead of releasing 3-4 new soldid to good RtCW´s over the past nine years, not to mention Quake and Doom, they released five shitty sequels to great games on a shitty engine...
MW2 and CoD BO aren't the same game unlike ET.
I play ET coz it's fun. Not because it's free. I have COD aswell.
I play ET.
WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWRRRRRRYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY
Men, but go ahead and try to correct people
Because of this, I don't understand the point you're trying get across in your column. Sorry.
I'll take that as some constructive criticism.
:XD
at least check what u wrote before talking about his column! :D happy new year m8 :)
(>^.^)>
Happy new year hombre <3
Ruben*
Games are all about playability, and Quake has great playability, and is far better to watch than most team-based fps games.
Seems like a column written by someone who doesnt like quake, and doesnt really understand the wider attraction of gaming.
Everyone goes on about how games need to be designed more for the spectator, and I think thats complete BS. Make games that are fun to PLAY. That is all that really matters.