TR in T:V
- Thread starter KamaKAzii
- Start date
why would you bother playing with a 350 ping.....
I would be shocked and hugely disappointed if TR wasn't in the game. It had great potential but lots of institutional constraints confronted it at launch (major league vs ladder problem which killed morale, the existing large installed base of CTF teams/commitments, differing physics, the dispute over scoring, etc.).
If launched alongside CTF at launch and if it was well-promoted, I could see TR becoming a HUGELY popular gametype. One reason for this is that you can practice by yourself and with you teammates MUCH more easily (smaller numbers, easier to coordinate). This helps older, busier players like me (just turned 30 omg heh) who still want top-level, serious competition. TR is as fun as CTF and a lot easier to manage.
As Marweas has pointed out in other posts, one problem Tribes has is that it takes so long to play. With Quake and other fps-type games you can have fun playing for 5-10 mins. I believe that TR goes a long way towards bridging that divide.
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing elements of TR incorporated into CTF. Flag passing is skillful and very fun.
Finally, I would love to see T1-style Hunters incorporated into T:V as well. T2 hunters sucked major ass. Hunters is a great game for the serious-minded, but hugely busy player. Hunters matches (like three 10 minute games - highest net score wins) could totally rock. I could easily envision a Hunters ladder, similar to the duel-ladder, taking off. Team hunters was gay - leave that out.
If done right, I think Hunters could be a fun "spectator/sport" game much like TR could be.
If launched alongside CTF at launch and if it was well-promoted, I could see TR becoming a HUGELY popular gametype. One reason for this is that you can practice by yourself and with you teammates MUCH more easily (smaller numbers, easier to coordinate). This helps older, busier players like me (just turned 30 omg heh) who still want top-level, serious competition. TR is as fun as CTF and a lot easier to manage.
As Marweas has pointed out in other posts, one problem Tribes has is that it takes so long to play. With Quake and other fps-type games you can have fun playing for 5-10 mins. I believe that TR goes a long way towards bridging that divide.
Also, I wouldn't mind seeing elements of TR incorporated into CTF. Flag passing is skillful and very fun.
Finally, I would love to see T1-style Hunters incorporated into T:V as well. T2 hunters sucked major ass. Hunters is a great game for the serious-minded, but hugely busy player. Hunters matches (like three 10 minute games - highest net score wins) could totally rock. I could easily envision a Hunters ladder, similar to the duel-ladder, taking off. Team hunters was gay - leave that out.
If done right, I think Hunters could be a fun "spectator/sport" game much like TR could be.
Sir Lucius
Veteran XX
cAn said:
Splash damage aside, it's easier to hit a target when it also aims for your shots. A lot of it is about knowing your target and knowing your ping. Hpbs know how much they have to lead due to their lag, then you have to know your target and guess where they're going to be. If this is a strait shot then it's usually not even a problem. And hpb might have troble with perpendicular passes or might miss on opposite directional passes if they toss too late -- but it doesn't mean they can't pull those off.
Besides, the flag is a lot bigger than any of the weapon projectiles. It may not have splash, but its bounding box is fair enough.
I still say you're wrong about it being luck.
HPB's knowing how to lead is true and false.
I played as dial-up for two years. Fully adjusting for dialup ping is impossible because its so damn jumpy - especially from server to server.
While 996ing sucks, "micro" lag that grabs you intermittently throughout the game is far worse. There is no way to compensate for micro-lag - I don't care how much you practice.
I played as dial-up for two years. Fully adjusting for dialup ping is impossible because its so damn jumpy - especially from server to server.
While 996ing sucks, "micro" lag that grabs you intermittently throughout the game is far worse. There is no way to compensate for micro-lag - I don't care how much you practice.
i know many a good player who became amazing for HPB status.
besides the point on topic. I dont see TR as a gametype... but we will DEFINITLY see some of the elements in the game. I really hope flag passing becomes a big part of ctf. it adds a huge element of strategy to the game when done with skilled players.
besides the point on topic. I dont see TR as a gametype... but we will DEFINITLY see some of the elements in the game. I really hope flag passing becomes a big part of ctf. it adds a huge element of strategy to the game when done with skilled players.
Sir Lucius
Veteran XX
filsinger said:
If for nothing else, the game could have style points that are awarded or taken away based on how you play. MA's raise style, team kills lower style. Long range spam lowers style, taking out bases with fewer than X number of people lowers style, blowing up 3 or more people at once raises style. Flag passes (done correctly) raise style. You get the idea.
Lucious, thats a damn good idea.
Style...sounds good to me.
However, I must say that you will never get flag passes as fast and high in CTF as you do TR...and passing in CTF is much more risky than TR because sometimes even getting the flag is tricky enough, never mind being "stylish" with it. Which is what makes TR so great.
Style...sounds good to me.
However, I must say that you will never get flag passes as fast and high in CTF as you do TR...and passing in CTF is much more risky than TR because sometimes even getting the flag is tricky enough, never mind being "stylish" with it. Which is what makes TR so great.
TR is fun, but it is NOT the "pick up and play" gametype.
Duel is pick up and play.
Arena is pick up and play.
Rabbit is pick up and play.
Deathmatch is pick up and play.
CTF is a little more.
Siege is a little more.
TR is a lot more.
Tribes could have a good deathmatch if you allow people to spawn in their favorites, anywhere, on any valid surface, inbounds. Hunter is not a very good gametype because Tribes is too killy. It's easy to blow someone away.
King of the Hill would be better than Hunter.
If I had my way, I'd include the following gametypes:
Duel (just like T1 and T2).
Arena (just like T2 options).
Rabbit (like T1 and T2 with a SLEW of customizable options like MA only, weapons on and off, spawn or not, only direct hits, etc).
Deathmatch (see above).
CTF (duh)
Siege-like gametype (assualt, whatever).
TR (more like TR1 and not TR2. Goals and passing the flag competed for what was more important. Add in that the adjustable passing made flag passing too easy, and you find that TR1 was more fun to pass in.)
The neat part about the Unreal Engine is how much customization can be built into the gametypes. So lots of options please (except in CTF, Arena, and Duel. These are highly dependent on being standardized).
Duel is pick up and play.
Arena is pick up and play.
Rabbit is pick up and play.
Deathmatch is pick up and play.
CTF is a little more.
Siege is a little more.
TR is a lot more.
Tribes could have a good deathmatch if you allow people to spawn in their favorites, anywhere, on any valid surface, inbounds. Hunter is not a very good gametype because Tribes is too killy. It's easy to blow someone away.
King of the Hill would be better than Hunter.
If I had my way, I'd include the following gametypes:
Duel (just like T1 and T2).
Arena (just like T2 options).
Rabbit (like T1 and T2 with a SLEW of customizable options like MA only, weapons on and off, spawn or not, only direct hits, etc).
Deathmatch (see above).
CTF (duh)
Siege-like gametype (assualt, whatever).
TR (more like TR1 and not TR2. Goals and passing the flag competed for what was more important. Add in that the adjustable passing made flag passing too easy, and you find that TR1 was more fun to pass in.)
The neat part about the Unreal Engine is how much customization can be built into the gametypes. So lots of options please (except in CTF, Arena, and Duel. These are highly dependent on being standardized).
Sir Lucius
Veteran XX
That's very true, but think of blitzball for a moment. Blitzball (for those of you who don't know) is a minigame in Final Fantasy X. It's not something you pick up on right away and win at, it takes some time, and you learn to play it though the game.Zoolooman said:
Now my point is, the T:V Bombing Run game that will undoubtably be in (and is probably much like the bastard child of Tr2), will be part of the single player story. They've said they want to tach people the game through single player, and I doubt it will be exclusively teaching CTF.
So players will learn the basics of T:V Blitzballbombingrabbit, and hopefully they'll have fun. There after they'll seek out games to play against real players already knowing how to compeate (more or less). I'm sure the SP won't teach the exclusive strategy for winning, but I'm sure it will offer a template to play. It's also kind of forcing people to try out a gametype they'd otherwise ignore. I think that will get a foot in the door for the team rabbit vengeance we'd all like to see.
First off I really hope they include TR as a game type.
Second, I actually agree with everything Flatty said (amazing!!
If TR is not a gametype in T:V I certainly hope they do incorporate some of TR's playing elements. Of course passing the flag would be the primary 'element' of TR to be considered, but I also would like to see the beacon-stop given some consideration as well. Or atleast some way of stopping on a dime. (maybe leave out the popping up in the air 400 meters... maybe not...)
Oh well, I'd just rather TR was a gametype of its own rather than throwing more variables in the mix for the standard CTF game.
Second, I actually agree with everything Flatty said (amazing!!
If TR is not a gametype in T:V I certainly hope they do incorporate some of TR's playing elements. Of course passing the flag would be the primary 'element' of TR to be considered, but I also would like to see the beacon-stop given some consideration as well. Or atleast some way of stopping on a dime. (maybe leave out the popping up in the air 400 meters... maybe not...)
Oh well, I'd just rather TR was a gametype of its own rather than throwing more variables in the mix for the standard CTF game.
KP's a smart guy and I think he learned a hell of a lot from the implementation of TR2. TR2 was leaps and bounds ahead of the original, but it's new features didn't have time to be refined before release. As players picked it up and matches were played, some undesirable gameplay elements were observed that hindered TR2's staying power.
I'd love to see the next incarnation of TR in Vengeance. TR2 taught a good lesson for where this game type can go.
I'd love to see the next incarnation of TR in Vengeance. TR2 taught a good lesson for where this game type can go.
<3Kaden - Have we disagreed that much in the past =)?
Zoolooman why do you say TR and Hunters aren't "pickup and play?" Also, given that you're promoting duel/deathmatch/king of the hill etc. how is Hunters too "killy?" I don't follow your logic.
In your response please define exactly what you mean by "pickup and play." I think I know what you mean by that term but I'm having a hard time reconciling it with your list. Thanks =).
Zoolooman why do you say TR and Hunters aren't "pickup and play?" Also, given that you're promoting duel/deathmatch/king of the hill etc. how is Hunters too "killy?" I don't follow your logic.
In your response please define exactly what you mean by "pickup and play." I think I know what you mean by that term but I'm having a hard time reconciling it with your list. Thanks =).
Flatscan said:
Amen. TR is a perfect gametype for tibes. Teamwork, coordination, fast-paced, and a huge learning curve where there's always room to improve.
Hunters as a gametype is OK. But even back in the Quake days, straight through to this Tribes implementation, I've felt that the gametype suffered because of the lack of player survivability. It was OK as a team mode (though that inevitably fails for the reasons it did in T2 - that'll be my next post), but as an all alone battle, it tends to degrade into a silly/strange deathmatch, or a camp fest, where someone stays near the flag and whores down the field winner for mad profits. Hunters sounds good in theory, but in practice, the players who win are not the players who are the best fighters with the best survival rate. The emergent gameplay of Hunters since it's Quake days has rewarded the jerk who reams the heavily damaged, flag laden bastard who has worked hard to earn his points.
A gametype which has been more successful in allowing the better players to win while still having the fun aspects of cutthroatting and camping in Hunters, goes something like this.
Imagine a gametype in which the players earn a point for one kill straight up, two points for the second kill in a row, three points for the third kill in a row, four points for the fourth kill in a row, etc. When the player himself is fragged, half (maybe 3/4ths?) of his points go to the man who killed him, and he has to start over. First to an arbitrary number(say 100) wins.
This gets around the problems of Hunters by making the points inherent to the player. Now it is the person who kills you, and NOT the person who camps around a Nexus, that benefits from your death.
This rewards fighting, unlike the current Hunters model.
Pickup and play relates to the dedication required to play the gametype, and the map dedication required to win a map.
Tribes has two skillsets: killing and movement. They are interellated in several ways, but one can frankly learn to play Tribes well without being a good skiier, and a good skiier can play Tribes well without being a good aimer. A great player, can do both of these things.
A game like CTF, TR, or Hunters, has no pick up and play ease. CTF and TR require both skills, and dedication to learn the maps. Plus, you have to play a map from the start to have full impact on the game.
Other gametypes, Duel, DM, Arena, King of the Hill, etc, require only one skill type: killing, and require no map dedication to have an impact: you can join in at any time and find yourself even with all the other players.
To win Hunters, you either have to be godly good at killing compared to everyone else (which is a difficult situation to find oneself in unless you join a newb server), or you have to camp a common spot on the map and pick off flags to go cash in. It is a gametype requiring you to be dedicated during the entire map. Not only that, but it does not reward the best fighter very often for his skill.
But that's just my opinion. I think Hunters is a badly designed gametype. I already mentioned the sort of gametype I think it should be (to orient it back at being about killing people, and not camping about for flags).
A gametype which has been more successful in allowing the better players to win while still having the fun aspects of cutthroatting and camping in Hunters, goes something like this.
Imagine a gametype in which the players earn a point for one kill straight up, two points for the second kill in a row, three points for the third kill in a row, four points for the fourth kill in a row, etc. When the player himself is fragged, half (maybe 3/4ths?) of his points go to the man who killed him, and he has to start over. First to an arbitrary number(say 100) wins.
This gets around the problems of Hunters by making the points inherent to the player. Now it is the person who kills you, and NOT the person who camps around a Nexus, that benefits from your death.
This rewards fighting, unlike the current Hunters model.
Pickup and play relates to the dedication required to play the gametype, and the map dedication required to win a map.
Tribes has two skillsets: killing and movement. They are interellated in several ways, but one can frankly learn to play Tribes well without being a good skiier, and a good skiier can play Tribes well without being a good aimer. A great player, can do both of these things.
A game like CTF, TR, or Hunters, has no pick up and play ease. CTF and TR require both skills, and dedication to learn the maps. Plus, you have to play a map from the start to have full impact on the game.
Other gametypes, Duel, DM, Arena, King of the Hill, etc, require only one skill type: killing, and require no map dedication to have an impact: you can join in at any time and find yourself even with all the other players.
To win Hunters, you either have to be godly good at killing compared to everyone else (which is a difficult situation to find oneself in unless you join a newb server), or you have to camp a common spot on the map and pick off flags to go cash in. It is a gametype requiring you to be dedicated during the entire map. Not only that, but it does not reward the best fighter very often for his skill.
But that's just my opinion. I think Hunters is a badly designed gametype. I already mentioned the sort of gametype I think it should be (to orient it back at being about killing people, and not camping about for flags).
Last edited:
Zoolooman I now understand your point. I think your perception of Hunters is deeply rooted in T2 Hunters.
T2 Hunters sucked badly both in its individual and team version. The primary reasons for the suckage were piss-poor map design and physics. I think Team Hunters is stoopid due to the camping that inevitably results. I prefer the wide-open single-player version.
If you were to have played T1 Hunters, I think you would have a much different view of single-player Hunters. Very little camping went on (except for 1 lame map where the Nexus was inside), the gameplay was hugely fast and furious, and the game was intuitive. If you played it for five minutes, you understood how to win. While strategy mattered, the strategy didn't require massive experience to pick up.
To be honest, I think Hunters fits your definition of "pickup and play" to a tee.
For the most part, TR also fits your definition of "pickup and play." The only reason it doesn't completely fit is flag passing and possibly beacon stopping.
TR2's complexity resulted from both of the above and physics that differed from Classic. As has been hinted, I think flag passing will become a bigger part of CTF (reducing the "pickup and play" gap). Further, my suspician is that some form of beacon stopping will be added to CTF (prolly just a dead stop, not pop up in the air - also further reducing the "pickup and play" gap). Finally, my gut is that the physics of ALL gametypes (CTF, TR, DM, Duel, Hunters, whatever) will be the same.
Given these changes, I think TR will easily fold into your definition of "pickup and play."
T2 Hunters sucked badly both in its individual and team version. The primary reasons for the suckage were piss-poor map design and physics. I think Team Hunters is stoopid due to the camping that inevitably results. I prefer the wide-open single-player version.
If you were to have played T1 Hunters, I think you would have a much different view of single-player Hunters. Very little camping went on (except for 1 lame map where the Nexus was inside), the gameplay was hugely fast and furious, and the game was intuitive. If you played it for five minutes, you understood how to win. While strategy mattered, the strategy didn't require massive experience to pick up.
To be honest, I think Hunters fits your definition of "pickup and play" to a tee.
For the most part, TR also fits your definition of "pickup and play." The only reason it doesn't completely fit is flag passing and possibly beacon stopping.
TR2's complexity resulted from both of the above and physics that differed from Classic. As has been hinted, I think flag passing will become a bigger part of CTF (reducing the "pickup and play" gap). Further, my suspician is that some form of beacon stopping will be added to CTF (prolly just a dead stop, not pop up in the air - also further reducing the "pickup and play" gap). Finally, my gut is that the physics of ALL gametypes (CTF, TR, DM, Duel, Hunters, whatever) will be the same.
Given these changes, I think TR will easily fold into your definition of "pickup and play."
Got Haggis?
Veteran XX
tr2's biggest problem was that it was closed to testing.