Competitive Gaming

[Murvel]

This thread is more of a general Huxley-thread so I'm going to move it, sorry guys that it took so long.

*Thread moved*

[eclipsedmind]

ok then.but just as you just said competitive gaming will make clans fight more competitivly in battles

[connnnn]

If you're looking for competition this isn't going to be the game to play...

I do know a lot of (competitive) players who will be watching this game to see if it's a viable game to play on the side for fun.

[xxvic1ousxx]

Originally Posted by connnnn

If you're looking for competition this isn't going to be the game to play...

I do know a lot of (competitive) players who will be watching this game to see if it's a viable game to play on the side for fun.

Hehe...try not to let the fact that the game is also an MMO, elude the possibility that this can become an extremely competitive game. Like I've said in other threads, this game's playability (judging from developer interviews and videos) is very much the same as Quake or Unreal Tournament; 2 of the most competitive game series of all time.

Complete character customization; large array of weapons, armor, and items to boost players capabilities; supposedly over 100 skills to be learned, an entire world of NPC's and now over 9,999 other players to interact with; with the PvP's handling very much like an Onslaught match, DM or TDM in UT2k4 (again, judging from developer interviews and videos). The MMORPG elements add more strategy, versatility and definitely enlarges the skill cap, as opposed to your traditional FPS. I guess very much in the same manner as Shadowrun with the ability to purchase weapons, tech and magic; minus a large world to socialize in. Shadowrun was expected to be a complete failure, never expected to ever be in the line-up of a major tournament; but look who picked it up, the largest console only tournament in the world.

We could probably take a logical assumption at some balanced competitive gameplay setups right now.

1v1

• Banning any overpowered weapons and items
• 4 small maps in cycle
• best of 5 series/ first to 15 frags
• 20 minute timer
• match types: DM

2v2

• Banning any overpowered weapons and items
• 4 small maps in cycle
• best of 5 series/ first to 50 frags
• 30 minute timer
• match types: DM

4v4

• Banning any overpowered weapons and items
• allowing only certain types of vehicles
• 4 medium sized maps in cycle; 2 more maps for vehicles
• best of 7 series/ first to 50 frags or 3 objectives completed
• 30 minute timer
• match types: DM, any objective gametypes

8v8

• Banning any overpowered weapons and items
• allowing only certain types of vehicles
• 4 large maps in cycle
• best of 7 series/ first to 100 frags or 3 objectives completed
• 30 minute timer
• match types: DM, any objective gametypes

Large scale clan battles/ 20+ v 20+

• Banning any overpowered weapons and items
• allowing only certain types of vehicles
• 3 really large maps in cycle
• best of 5 series/ first to 100+ frags or 3 objectives completed
• 30 minute timer
• match types: DM, any objective gametypes

If anything, this game would be best suited for online tournaments. Setting lvl classes would also help to balance out gameplay.

[eclipsedmind]

wow you sumed that up pretty good.like wat you think very simple and im not sure about the overpowered weopons,they will exist but there will be licences to counter such things.

[connnnn]

Just because a game is used in tournaments doesn't mean it's a good competitive game :P. PC example is obvious: Painkiller.

In fact, looking at the joke that competitive gaming has been turned into this year, being a terrible game seems to have become a prerequisite lately... it's more about which publishers will relinquish the most money/rights to get their game tacked onto events than which games have actual competitive followings or are even tailored toward competition.

Console example: GOW's multiplayer was tacked on in like the last 2 weeks of development time as an afterthought... for months/years they said they wouldn't even do multi because it was a single player game they wanted to focus on. Thus, the multi is terrible (yea yea it's an opinion... but how else do you describe something that's completely featureless and shallow?). Yet it's often the #1 played game on XBL and has $$$$ tourneys...

But that's a whole other discussion right there.

My point is, it is only logical to expect that UT3 will be a better competitive platform in every possible way, since it's being built with specific focus on smaller-scale gameplay (the kinds of scales that actually work in organized games), doesn't require a subscription, and will run on a wider range of machines than Huxley will. You may like Huxley more than UT3 and that's fine, and it might even be more popular, but as the Battlefield series has proven, just because tons of people play a game doesn't mean a high enough % are interested in real competition to truly support it. I just don't see people getting into Huxley with competition in mind. Most people I know are primarily interested in the possibility of interesting co-op gameplay (myself included).

And just for amusement, check this article: Shadowrun - Controller Balancing

That article pretty much killed the game for PC gamers before it was even released.

[xxvic1ousxx]

Originally Posted by connnnn

Just because a game is used in tournaments doesn't mean it's a good competitive game :P. PC example is obvious: Painkiller.

Hehe...I've played and seen numerous amounts of Painkiller matches, has most, if not all the same competitive elements that Quake and UT have. Only thing I can see is that Painkiller is better suited for 1v1, where as Quake and UT can be played for a variety of game types.

Originally Posted by connnnn

In fact, looking at the joke that competitive gaming has been turned into this year, being a terrible game seems to have become a prerequisite lately... it's more about which publishers will relinquish the most money/rights to get their game tacked onto events than which games have actual competitive followings or are even tailored toward competition.

Console example: GOW's multiplayer was tacked on in like the last 2 weeks of development time as an afterthought... for months/years they said they wouldn't even do multi because it was a single player game they wanted to focus on. Thus, the multi is terrible (yea yea it's an opinion... but how else do you describe something that's completely featureless and shallow?). Yet it's often the #1 played game on XBL and has $$$$ tourneys...

Yeah I know, Cliffy B. himself mentioned numerous times that Gears of War was never designed to be played competitively; the primary intent of the game was to be a 'Single Player Survival Horror' experience. The multiplayer is there to give the game longevity. Opinion or not my friend, I do agree with you on the depth of Gears multiplayer.

Originally Posted by connnnn

My point is, it is only logical to expect that UT3 will be a better competitive platform in every possible way, since it's being built with specific focus on smaller-scale gameplay (the kinds of scales that actually work in organized games), doesn't require a subscription, and will run on a wider range of machines than Huxley will. You may like Huxley more than UT3 and that's fine, and it might even be more popular, but as the Battlefield series has proven, just because tons of people play a game doesn't mean a high enough % are interested in real competition to truly support it. I just don't see people getting into Huxley with competition in mind. Most people I know are primarily interested in the possibility of interesting co-op gameplay (myself included).

It's UT3...lol that goes without saying. But yeah, UT is one of my favorite gaming series.

Hehe...and yeah I was already aware of the balancing issues between console and PC for Shadowrun long before the game even launched. But it was irrelevant, considering I was talking about a Console Only Competition.

[connnnn]

Hah did a mod edit my post to make the link prettier? :P

It's beautiful thanks guys :>

[Emelji]

There is definitely a huge skill gap in Shadowrun. An example of the skill gap in a team role would be the third round builds. By third round you need everyone, or mostly everyone, to have teleport. To have this done you need to either give out money in an organized manner to your team, or you need to win in a specific way. Now thats really simple, but some teams don't recognize a need to have teleport early and so these teams will generally lose. If you want to apply that to the race selection system you can see that a team with no troll will lose to a team with a troll. There is the ressurection requirements, again in the buy and build sections of the mental aspects of shadowrun, of two early, three mid, and four end. The need for 1.5 trees per 2 tree users early. 2 per 2 mid, and 2.5 per 2 late. Just a whole lot of things just on a buy and build level that some teams don't recognize. These sort of things will probably transfer over to Huxley.

PC players have an advantage over controller players, this was confirmed as soon the top teams emerged. You had 1080 with Chillax and BugsPray on the computer, they could beat a team 6-0, you switched Chillax for the best player on the team that they just beat, and now Chillax would win 6-2. Similar with ext. Both players play on controllers lately, they are still good, but there not teleport in to two guys that were expecting the teleport and three shot them both with mouse aim and teleport away good. Both of them are still on top teams as well but if you switch them to the other team there isn't going to be such a huge difference in rounds. So it didn't really kill it for computer players.

[connnnn]

Well I don't mean to hijack the thread here but I'm genuinely curious:

How large is the game's PC community? Are there even enough players/servers to play without paying for cross platform?

I'm pretty sure exactly zero players from the competitive DM games (UT, Quake, etc) are playing Shadowrun (I can't speak for other game communities), so frankly I'm not sure from where exactly it drew any competitive player base that it may have on the PC. The game pretty much got ridiculed from all angles (beginning from the day that article was discovered), then the developer threw gasoline on the fire by complaining about bad reviews, and the 2 or 3 people I know who bought the game just for the sake of trying it out ended up telling everyone they coasterized it pretty quickly. So it was pretty much doomed from that segment of the gaming population.

[Emelji]

I don't play Shadowrun on the PC, I play it on console. I couldn't tell you whether or not there are enough servers right now but I'll ask for you. I know ext plays professional CS, so theres some interest in the other communities. If you did get the game I would suggest getting cross-platform anyway since most of the competitive scene is on the 360.

Connnnn the game got a 6.0 from one review when the only negative was that it didn't have single player. BioShock got a 10.0 and they had the negative of no Multiplayer. The 6.0 site had an average user rating of 8.6. The complaints about reviews were justified on the 360 side of things. From my experience everyone who bought it on the console side was saying you've got to pick this game up, its brilliant. I remember watching a dual review where the guy played it for both PC and Xbox, he gave the xbox side a 8.0 but the PC side a 6.0.

A Shining Success: Shadowrun Initial Impressions | Major League Gaming

This review if the one I read first, and I read it after I read a bunch of posts from friends saying the game was amazing. I read all the negative reviews after and completely disagreed with them.

[connnnn]

Doesn't MLG have a contract with Shadowrun's publishers to use it in upcoming events?

That kinda kills all the credibility of the article right there... of course they're going to say it's awesome, they've already committed resources toward the game.

You don't wonder why the majority of reviews/comments about the game say the exact opposite? Most I saw said it was an okay but uninspired game that was more of a CS mod than a retail game and needed to be priced as such to be worth the cost. I was looking at random reviews off Gamerankings.com so I don't remember which exact articles said what, but there was a Kotaku article about the one guy who came out talking trash about how everyone was giving the game mediocre reviews.

[xxvic1ousxx]

Yeah, MLG has contract with FASA to have it as part of the competitive cirtcuit line-up. An experimental open tournament took place at an MLG even not to long ago, and then it's very first official tournament about a week ago at MLG Chicago.

The review MLG gave for Shadowrun was strictly based on the competitive aspect for consoles.

As far as the mediocre reviews, I would have to agree with them. Considering the all factors that go into a game, the game at best is a little above average. Now reviewing this game from a competitive standpoint, I would rate the game much higher. There's a lot of individual and team skill that goes into this game, the amount of strategy is incredible and the potential is unlimited.

If anyone is basing there judgment on Shadowrun from what the've heard from these forums or a bunch of reviews they may have read, let me tell you this; Shadowrun fails to deliver in a lot of ways, but the initial intent of the game was achieved and one must experience it themselves to truly understand the depth of the game.

heheh....Anyways, how did we get from debating over Huxley's potential as a competitive game, to discussing the credibility of Shadowrun?

[Grind]

Let's see if we can't rekindle the topic!

Can't any game be a competitive game? I mean, something like Gunbound, a free game that resembles that Worms world party, a turn based game where you just like, aim guns at someone and press shoot lol.

Anyway, I knew some people who took that game pretty seriously. I'm not sure if there were any actual tournaments held for it, but I wouldn't be surprised.

With FPS's being so competitive, and everyone wanting to be the best, I wouldn't be surprised to see some tournaments pop up for Huxley once it's been out for a bit.

[eclipsedmind]

Like an arena or Something,that's probaly be most likely in this kind of world.I hope there will be competitions.

[Grind]

Originally Posted by eclipsedmind

Like an arena or Something,that's probaly be most likely in this kind of world.I hope there will be competitions.

yeah an arena would be really cool to have in game. For like 1v1, squad vs squad and anything else I guess.

It would be even cooler if people could watch as it all went down too