I honestly don't have fun at all playing TF2 and such. It's just really boring. If I'm going to suffer for the pleasure of others, it's only fair for some equivalent exchange. It actually wouldn't be equivalent exchange though, because I would get extra pleasure from teaching people to play the awesome games in addition to actually playing them.
But in exchange, you have to play Counter-Strike. Maybe I can win at gungame for the first time in my life on a private server with nobody other than you nubs.
If you've never won a round of gungame in your life, I don't think you've a place calling anyone else a noob, noob.
I honestly don't have fun at all playing TF2 and such. It's just really boring.
That's fair. I don't play CS because it's like watching paint dry, I tested my skills of headclicking far beyond the point of satisfaction a long time ago, and now CS is nothing more than watching a bunch of people do the same thing, the same way, with the same weapons, over and over and over and over and over. The only two things more boring than CS are 1)Watching CS without playing it, and 2)Listening to CS players who suck at every other FPS tell you why CS is superior.
As for teaching other people? Yeah, no. CS tests a skill that only gets better with practice, and map knowledge, both of which you can't teach personally, though the latter mostly because it's a visual and experience thing - describing the map isn't anything like exploring it. Maybe we could teach you TF2, since there is more to it than just two simple skills which you can practice with a simple Java program and a picture, and they're actually skills you can learn and practice with other people, along with knowledge that other people can impart.
I honestly don't have fun at all playing TF2 and such. It's just really boring. If I'm going to suffer for the pleasure of others, it's only fair for some equivalent exchange. It actually wouldn't be equivalent exchange though, because I would get extra pleasure from teaching people to play the awesome games in addition to actually playing them.
But would you get the pleasure of playing the game? You would be playing against nubs and there wouldn't be any challenge, thus no fun to have.
But in exchange, you have to play Counter-Strike. Maybe I can win at gungame for the first time in my life on a private server with nobody other than you nubs.
If you've never won a round of gungame in your life, I don't think you've a place calling anyone else a noob, noob.
How many have you won? Also, I may not win, but I'm consistently up there under the people who are really good. Also once, I made it to knife round, and I've made it to 'nade round quite a few times. It's also possible that those really good people are all cheating, in which case I am fucking awesome at gungame.
I honestly don't have fun at all playing TF2 and such. It's just really boring. If I'm going to suffer for the pleasure of others, it's only fair for some equivalent exchange. It actually wouldn't be equivalent exchange though, because I would get extra pleasure from teaching people to play the awesome games in addition to actually playing them.
But would you get the pleasure of playing the game? You would be playing against nubs and there wouldn't be any challenge, thus no fun to have.
I like teaching people things. Also it's sort of like rewatching a movie you've seen 100 times with someone who has never seen it. You can vicariously relive your first time through them.
I like teaching people things. Also it's sort of like rewatching a movie you've seen 100 times with someone who has never seen it. You can vicariously relive your first time through them.
I might be interested of seeing if you could teach me to get good enough at CS so I could find more enjoyment out of it rather than frustration. Also I mean real CS with bombs or hostages, gun-game doesn't count, I don't have any problems with that.
Quake Live! is free, tiny, works with Linux (ish), super quick to get into. Why are you refusing this? There is nothing to learn. Scott can promise to do no bunnyhopping or rocket jumping. All you do is run around, click on peoples heads and keep clicking until they're dead. Just play on the same map a few times and you can't argue with not knowing the maps either.
How many have you won? Also, I may not win, but I'm consistently up there under the people who are really good. Also once, I made it to knife round, and I've made it to 'nade round quite a few times. It's also possible that those really good people are all cheating, in which case I am fucking awesome at gungame.
Twenty, thirty, a hundred? Fucked if I know dude, I haven't played CS for more than five or ten minutes as a distraction since my voice broke, but I used to play as often as a kid with unlimited free time outside of school could, so you cram in a lot of games. I lost plenty of them, too, if it makes you feel better, and I'm confident I'd probably lose a lot more than I won nowdays.
TF2 is free, CS costs money if you don't have it. I would be game for some TF2 but just know that I have never played it.
That's cool, as much as we're having a go at Scott, we're pretty welcoming on the server, and I'm sure most people here would be happy do drop whatever knowledge you required, and whenever I get items I don't want, I'm always happy to pass them on to other people in the FRC.
I feel like, similar to Street Fighter IV or StarCraft II, CS is a game that doesn't really reward dilettantes.
Play CS to get good and you will have fun when you start seeing yourself improve. TF2 is fun right way but the skill ceiling is lower so you ultimately gain less satisfaction from getting good (though the utility of lulzing it up with bros is its own source of fun).
Are there any first person shooters where your head clicking ability is relatively low value and all of the "skill" is actually in team-based tactics and strategy? I've suddenly got a craving to play something that I'm not sure exists (or can exist).
Play CS to get good and you will have fun when you start seeing yourself improve. TF2 is fun right way but the skill ceiling is lower so you ultimately gain less satisfaction from getting good (though the utility of lulzing it up with bros is its own source of fun).
I'd say that the biggest difference in fun-factor in TF2 and CS is the amount of punishment it gives. TF2 is not very punishing, if you die it just means few seconds to wait until respawn. On the other hand dying in CS:S sucks because it means that you might be minutes without playing the game. If you are a newb and play CS:S remember to bring DS along.
That is something I realized when I thought these things today. I don't mind challenge, I enjoy lots of challenging games and find those fun. But punishment is something that kills my enjoyment. That's why I find even easy games that punish hardly for failure frustrating, while hard challenging games that doesn't really punish player for failure are enjoyable. And CS:S is both, it's challenging and the punishment for failure is huge and that is my reasoning for not enjoying that game.
Are there any first person shooters where your head clicking ability is relatively low value and all of the "skill" is actually in team-based tactics and strategy? I've suddenly got a craving to play something that I'm not sure exists (or can exist).
Yeah, it's called a turn based strategy game or a board game. In any real-time game your ability to do something in real-time, is going to be a major factor.
Are there any first person shooters where your head clicking ability is relatively low value and all of the "skill" is actually in team-based tactics and strategy? I've suddenly got a craving to play something that I'm not sure exists (or can exist).
One reason why I really loved the Enemy Territory back when people still played it was that when I was newb and my head clicking was weak I was able to be useful for the team as a medic or engineer. Although I was a lot more useful for the team after I got better at headclicking, but at least I wasn't totally useless before that.
Perhaps the reason you are having trouble with the punishment in CS is because you bring your DS along. When I'm dead I keep a very close eye on the action. If you zone out and get pissed instead of spectating, you are just setting yourself up for failure.
Are there any first person shooters where your head clicking ability is relatively low value and all of the "skill" is actually in team-based tactics and strategy? I've suddenly got a craving to play something that I'm not sure exists (or can exist).
Yeah, it's called a turn based strategy game or a board game. In any real-time game your ability to do something in real-time, is going to be a major factor.
There are other real time skills than head clicking, even in fps. Maneuvering around is one. What if someone made and fps where everybody can take lots of hits to face, but die fast when enemy gets on your back. Then add some objectives that require you to do something else than just sit back against the wall all the time and there could be and fps like no other. Fps where finding your way behind the enemies backs is more important than clicking on the head.
Perhaps the reason you are having trouble with the punishment in CS is because you bring your DS along. When I'm dead I keep a very close eye on the action. If you zone out and get pissed instead of spectating, you are just setting yourself up for failure.
Very similar to watching replays / commentary of SF or SC2. Watching people who are better than you play can be as valuable as practice.
Are there any first person shooters where your head clicking ability is relatively low value and all of the "skill" is actually in team-based tactics and strategy? I've suddenly got a craving to play something that I'm not sure exists (or can exist).
Yeah, it's called a turn based strategy game or a board game. In any real-time game your ability to do something in real-time, is going to be a major factor.
But what I want is real time strategy, not turn-based strategy. I want to have to out-think my opponent in real time, not out-click my opponent in real time. I'm sort of in a bit of a fog trying to figure out how that would work.
Perhaps the reason you are having trouble with the punishment in CS is because you bring your DS along. When I'm dead I keep a very close eye on the action. If you zone out and get pissed instead of spectating, you are just setting yourself up for failure.
Very similar to watching replays / commentary of SF or SC2. Watching people who are better than you play can be as valuable as practice.
I see and understand the usefulnes of watching other people play, and I don't actually have my DS on my side if I end up playing CS:S, but sometimes I wish that I would have it. But when I play game I want to play a game and if I want to watch other people play I go the the youtube. There I can probably even get useful commentary to go with the visuals. Seeing what I person does can be useful, hearing the reasoning behind persons actions is even more so.
Are there any first person shooters where your head clicking ability is relatively low value and all of the "skill" is actually in team-based tactics and strategy? I've suddenly got a craving to play something that I'm not sure exists (or can exist).
Yeah, it's called a turn based strategy game or a board game. In any real-time game your ability to do something in real-time, is going to be a major factor.
But what I want is real time strategy, not turn-based strategy. I want to have to out-think my opponent in real time, not out-click my opponent in real time. I'm sort of in a bit of a fog trying to figure out how that would work.
The only way right now is to make a computer you can control with your mind. We have that, but it's kinda crappy and not good enough for gaming yet.
No matter how fast or how well you can think, you have to input your thoughts into the computer somehow. Every currently existing reasonable method of input is going to add a real-time execution factor. Even if you can think faster than your opponent, if he can input his thoughts faster, then you will lose. Just like how I can post faster on this forum because I am very good at typing even though you might be thinking faster.
If you can solve this problem, you will make all the moneys.
Are there any first person shooters where your head clicking ability is relatively low value and all of the "skill" is actually in team-based tactics and strategy? I've suddenly got a craving to play something that I'm not sure exists (or can exist).
TF2 is a good start(And free), but NS1/2 are better for that sort of thing, though grain of salt, I've not played any NS. If you can find some people to play ARMA with, that's good for it, too, and Battlefield 3 is strongly team-focused - I've topped leaderboards without getting a single kill, just by PTFO(Play/Playing the fucking objective) and by helping my team out by driving a mobile spawn point vehicle, or doing reconnaissance.
EDIT - Actually, I'd really like to see Scott playing BF3, I think that once he got the hang of it, he'd be really good at it, and an excellent person to have on your team. Sadly, this will never happen, but a man can dream.
Perhaps the reason you are having trouble with the punishment in CS is because you bring your DS along. When I'm dead I keep a very close eye on the action. If you zone out and get pissed instead of spectating, you are just setting yourself up for failure.
Very similar to watching replays / commentary of SF or SC2. Watching people who are better than you play can be as valuable as practice.
I see and understand the usefulnes of watching other people play, and I don't actually have my DS on my side if I end up playing CS:S, but sometimes I wish that I would have it. But when I play game I want to play a game and if I want to watch other people play I go the the youtube. There I can probably even get useful commentary to go with the visuals. Seeing what I person does can be useful, hearing the reasoning behind persons actions is even more so.
Watching the other players in any individual game of CS is a key to winning, even if you aren't studying to improve your skills. You are learning the habits of those particular teammates and opponents that WILL come into play every round until those players leave. Even the greatest champions have habits.
Let me give an example from football. I remember an interview with the piece of shit Michael Vick. He is a very unconventional quarterback. He used to not study film. He thought that since he was so unconventional that the defenses would completely change strategies against him, so studying how they played against other teams was not worthwhile. Yes teams changed their strategies slightly against him, but only slightly. Their fundamental plans were the same from game to game.
Teams would really like to play completely new strategies every time to surprise opponents. The problem is that a new strategy is untested. Better to go with a winning strategy your opponent knows is coming than a shit strategy with an element of surprise. It's also better to go with a tried and true strategy you have a lot of practice at executing perfectly than trying something new that you will execute shittily.
That is why you watch the other players in CS when you are dead. They will do the same shit they did before. People are creatures of habit. You can learn form them this round to kill them next round.The ability to spectate while dead gives you a slight advantage in future rounds, and this is balanced by giving the winning teams more money.
I'm just remembering specific in-the-zone moments in Tribes 2 and some PvP in MMORPGs. My physical reaction speed wasn't what was incredibly important (it was a necessary but mild component), but predicting my enemies next moves and coordinating counters with my team was what made the game what it was to me. But yeah, neural interfacing would be... interesting...
Actually another example of it can be vaguely seen in any real-life debate now that I'm thinking about it. But typically there we're mixing in some additional rules and concerns... I don't know how you would distill that down...
CS is super fun if either MOST of the players are skilled, or MOST of the players AREN'T.
If you all play CS with us, sure, we'll be Neo, but the rest of you will probably have fun together. As long as we distribute the Neos between the teams fairly, it will work. ;^)
Oh shit... now I remember one that was interesting. There was a (somewhat bad) PVP focused MMO that only existed briefly that initially tried to make a big deal out of the $100,000 in prizes being offered for its starting tournament. The game failed, but if you ever came into a slug-fest between two melee characters it boiled down to a sort of 15-way paper-rock-scissors of selecting maneuvers and positioning. It was complicated, but I loved countering everyone by switching up my attack choices and removing their resources. The game largely failed at teamplay though (boiled down to burst damage and having big stats). And sadly there really wasn't much depth and it was poorly balanced. But there was something there... something that had a weird sort of value.
CS is super fun if either MOST of the players are skilled, or MOST of the players AREN'T.
If you all play CS with us, sure, we'll be Neo, but the rest of you will probably have fun together. As long as we distribute the Neos between the teams fairly, it will work. ;^)
The thing is, we aren't really Neo. We will die. And it's not like we're the only people here who are actually good. Not everyone on this entire forum is a nub.
CS is super fun if either MOST of the players are skilled, or MOST of the players AREN'T.
If you all play CS with us, sure, we'll be Neo, but the rest of you will probably have fun together. As long as we distribute the Neos between the teams fairly, it will work. ;^)
The thing is, we aren't really Neo. We will die. And it's not like we're the only people here who are actually good. Not everyone on this entire forum is a nub.
Heck, even I wouldn't call myself a total nub in CS:S. If I remember right I did pretty well when we played with a forumites once. The thing is that these days pub servers are ultra-hard mode and begin somewhat decent doesn't cut it.
CS is super fun if either MOST of the players are skilled, or MOST of the players AREN'T.
If you all play CS with us, sure, we'll be Neo, but the rest of you will probably have fun together. As long as we distribute the Neos between the teams fairly, it will work. ;^)
The thing is, we aren't really Neo. We will die. And it's not like we're the only people here who are actually good. Not everyone on this entire forum is a nub.
Heck, even I wouldn't call myself a total nub in CS:S. If I remember right I did pretty well when we played with a forumites once. The thing is that these days pub servers are ultra-hard mode and begin somewhat decent doesn't cut it.
I'm going to be honest here. On a lot of pubs I play on there are usually fewer than 5 people on any given server who are the "gods" who always win. They are just way way ahead of everyone else. I'm usually one to three places behind them. When a server is lacking any gods, I almost have a chance of winning.
Since this is always on a public Internet server I have no way of absolutely knowing those guys aren't cheating. I'm pretty sure they aren't because it doesn't look like it when I spectate them. But, there does seem to be some sort of art to cheating only ever so slightly as to get an advantage without being detected. I have seen blatantly obvious hax that go all out and just headshot everyone instantly. That means VAC isn't foolproof, and cheating could be happening.
I'm very curious to play for real with all people I know with 100% certainty are not cheating. If I play in such a game, how well will I do?
Comments
As for teaching other people? Yeah, no. CS tests a skill that only gets better with practice, and map knowledge, both of which you can't teach personally, though the latter mostly because it's a visual and experience thing - describing the map isn't anything like exploring it. Maybe we could teach you TF2, since there is more to it than just two simple skills which you can practice with a simple Java program and a picture, and they're actually skills you can learn and practice with other people, along with knowledge that other people can impart.
Play CS to get good and you will have fun when you start seeing yourself improve. TF2 is fun right way but the skill ceiling is lower so you ultimately gain less satisfaction from getting good (though the utility of lulzing it up with bros is its own source of fun).
That is something I realized when I thought these things today. I don't mind challenge, I enjoy lots of challenging games and find those fun. But punishment is something that kills my enjoyment. That's why I find even easy games that punish hardly for failure frustrating, while hard challenging games that doesn't really punish player for failure are enjoyable. And CS:S is both, it's challenging and the punishment for failure is huge and that is my reasoning for not enjoying that game.
No matter how fast or how well you can think, you have to input your thoughts into the computer somehow. Every currently existing reasonable method of input is going to add a real-time execution factor. Even if you can think faster than your opponent, if he can input his thoughts faster, then you will lose. Just like how I can post faster on this forum because I am very good at typing even though you might be thinking faster.
If you can solve this problem, you will make all the moneys.
EDIT - Actually, I'd really like to see Scott playing BF3, I think that once he got the hang of it, he'd be really good at it, and an excellent person to have on your team. Sadly, this will never happen, but a man can dream.
Let me give an example from football. I remember an interview with the piece of shit Michael Vick. He is a very unconventional quarterback. He used to not study film. He thought that since he was so unconventional that the defenses would completely change strategies against him, so studying how they played against other teams was not worthwhile. Yes teams changed their strategies slightly against him, but only slightly. Their fundamental plans were the same from game to game.
Teams would really like to play completely new strategies every time to surprise opponents. The problem is that a new strategy is untested. Better to go with a winning strategy your opponent knows is coming than a shit strategy with an element of surprise. It's also better to go with a tried and true strategy you have a lot of practice at executing perfectly than trying something new that you will execute shittily.
That is why you watch the other players in CS when you are dead. They will do the same shit they did before. People are creatures of habit. You can learn form them this round to kill them next round.The ability to spectate while dead gives you a slight advantage in future rounds, and this is balanced by giving the winning teams more money.
If you all play CS with us, sure, we'll be Neo, but the rest of you will probably have fun together. As long as we distribute the Neos between the teams fairly, it will work. ;^)
Since this is always on a public Internet server I have no way of absolutely knowing those guys aren't cheating. I'm pretty sure they aren't because it doesn't look like it when I spectate them. But, there does seem to be some sort of art to cheating only ever so slightly as to get an advantage without being detected. I have seen blatantly obvious hax that go all out and just headshot everyone instantly. That means VAC isn't foolproof, and cheating could be happening.
I'm very curious to play for real with all people I know with 100% certainty are not cheating. If I play in such a game, how well will I do?