Bring back set jumping/cognitive thought

Surge · Post by **Surge** » 22-05-2003 01:58

yo Jerk

thats another reason i hate it to... the only persont hat should have it is keeps so they can do lower long dodges for 1v1's and mid cross-net saves.

makush · Post by **makush** » 22-05-2003 08:23

SamY's idea about playerside options is brilliant. It would definetely add new dimension to the game and there are really no serious cons. Only blind game designer would totally ignore it.

YoYo789 · Post by **YoYo789** » 22-05-2003 09:08

ur basically stepping down the 'player-classes' road if you do that.

T-Storm · Post by **T-Storm** » 22-05-2003 12:00

ur basically stepping down the 'player-classes' road if you do that.

What would be bad about it?
Besides it would be more advanced than fixed classes, after all you'd have a much wider variety of possible combinations.

nameless · Post by **nameless** » 22-05-2003 14:20

playerside = noone will use it

the only persont hat should have it is keeps so they can do lower long dodges for 1v1's and mid cross-net saves.

n1

T-Storm · Post by **T-Storm** » 22-05-2003 17:13

playerside = noone will use it

That would mean everybody plays in the preset resolution with the preset controls, with the default player model and the default player name...

Surge · Post by **Surge** » 23-05-2003 03:39

but then its not fair for defenders if this were to happen. Also what if via a console command it was cycled through by a player... either yes or no.

bURNINGrOID · Post by **bURNINGrOID** » 23-05-2003 04:15

I like the idea of being able to tweak your hammer. Big radius=low power, tight radius=high power. That's a pretty interesting idea.

Alars · Post by **Alars** » 23-05-2003 07:27

why couldnt it be just coded so the power of the volley is proportional to the radius from the player..... i mean have it like that in game with no settings?

Post by **DavidM** » 23-05-2003 13:59

this would kill the game, it would only be fun with people you know, who always have the same settings.....
because the key to success would be to know what the others can do and what they cannot....but you dunno it
its totally random then

makush · Post by **makush** » 23-05-2003 15:54

Actually randomness would only happen if the options are poorly designed i.e. they act like paper-stone-scissors. The idea is to have options that players select based on their own playing style (defensive/offensive etc.), not based on their opponent's playing style.

BTW, randomness rarely kills games. It's a tool to make game more friendly to beginners. Counter-Strike is a good example: I doubt it would be as popular as it is now, if it required as much skill as UT2k3 TDM.

However the hardcore players hate "high luck factor".

gnomeh · Post by **gnomeh** » 23-05-2003 21:51

cstrike requires much skill...
kthxs stfu...and dont talk unless u have any idea what your talking about

Alars · Post by **Alars** » 24-05-2003 00:22

sif play cs anymore....

Surge · Post by **Surge** » 24-05-2003 08:07

CS doent have an "extreme luck factor"...

Games with randomized CoF's are all luck factor and many people dont like them because they take a different kind of skill to play opposed to spray'n'pray games like CS.

makush · Post by **makush** » 24-05-2003 09:02

I don't talk. I write. Yes, CS requires much skill and it's not pure luck. I just tried to point out that "CS luck > UT2k3 TDM Luck", not "CS luck = 100% && Ut2k3 TDM luck = 0%".

Notpron Forums

Bring back set jumping/cognitive thought

Should set-jumping be brought back?