2 ms·

I think I agree with your point in general, but it doesn't sound like you played much Quakeworld or Quake 3. Spawn times on all items are on a fixed timer, and

I think I agree with your point in general, but it doesn't sound like you played much Quakeworld or Quake 3. Spawn times on all items are on a fixed timer, and a large part of the game dynamic is, when you're behind, knowing when the opponent picked them up and knowing when to contest them. And obviously being skilled enough to do so. Variants of Quake 3 (and Quakeworld for that matter) are still played competitively, and the skill ceiling is extremely high. Your suggestion is that these games would allow a weaker player to win because of lucky spawn or item pickups early in the game, but this never happens. In all games (Tennis, chess, whatever) one player very often has to play from behind -- whether you agree this is a good thing or not I'm not sure, but it is one way to design a game, and the way many many competitive games well before video games work. If you play better you gain an advantage, otherwise what is the point of playing better until the last moments?

kbenson 10y ago
> it doesn't sound like you played much Quakeworld or Quake 3 You're right. There were multiple factors that made it less fun than the alternatives I had at the time. > Spawn times on all items are on a fixed timer, and a large part of the game dynamic is, when you're behind, knowing when the opponent picked them up and knowing when to contest them. > Your suggestion is that these games would allow a weaker player to win because of lucky spawn or item pickups early in the game That's not sufficient for the scenario I described. It's not just that you get specific items early, it's that some maps supported specific routes you could traverse that allowed monopolization of those item drops. Now, my point isn't that this is necessarily bad, but that without effective tactics to combat this (which may exist, I was by no means a pro), then it's possible it may boost the ability of a player over someone who might be considered somewhat more skilled at that game. Based on how good my recollection of the situation (from almost a decade and a half ago) was and how well I was able to ascertain methods to counter it (possibly very poor), it may not be a good example. > In all games (Tennis, chess, whatever) one player very often has to play from behind -- whether you agree this is a good thing or not I'm not sure ... I think it is a good thing (thus my original point, a few comments up-thread). I also think a game that's meant to be competitive and skill based that it should be possible for a more skilled player to outplay a less skilled player, given enough time. Any situation which allows the lead player to maintain a lead regardless of skill (or even just ignoring everything but great skill differences) is a poor game of skill, and not really fit for competitive play.

kbenson 10y ago

> it doesn't sound like you played much Quakeworld or Quake 3 You're right. There were multiple factors that made it less fun than the alternatives I had at the time. > Spawn times on all items are on a fixed timer, and a large part of the game dynamic is, when you're behind, knowing when the opponent picked them up and knowing when to contest them. > Your suggestion is that these games would allow a weaker player to win because of lucky spawn or item pickups early in the game That's not sufficient for the scenario I described. It's not just that you get specific items early, it's that some maps supported specific routes you could traverse that allowed monopolization of those item drops. Now, my point isn't that this is necessarily bad, but that without effective tactics to combat this (which may exist, I was by no means a pro), then it's possible it may boost the ability of a player over someone who might be considered somewhat more skilled at that game. Based on how good my recollection of the situation (from almost a decade and a half ago) was and how well I was able to ascertain methods to counter it (possibly very poor), it may not be a good example. > In all games (Tennis, chess, whatever) one player very often has to play from behind -- whether you agree this is a good thing or not I'm not sure ... I think it is a good thing (thus my original point, a few comments up-thread). I also think a game that's meant to be competitive and skill based that it should be possible for a more skilled player to outplay a less skilled player, given enough time. Any situation which allows the lead player to maintain a lead regardless of skill (or even just ignoring everything but great skill differences) is a poor game of skill, and not really fit for competitive play.