feature request

[Ph0g]

Less spread is only bad if you sux at aiming.

[gotenks]

but if you suck at aiming you won't lower your spread

[Kendle]

Lol, it's all academic anyway. E.T. can't be modded, and UK Clans are absolutely adament the XP system is not viable for Clan games, simple as.

Game code affecting the most fundamental aspect of a First Person Shooter (i.e. a person's shooting ability) = wrong, simple as.

Though I am pleased with the number of Clans that are willing to give it a go. A few leagues and ladders are springing up, and even the other points that Clans raised (like large map sizes) are being overcome. It remains to be seen how they get on, but I'm sure where there's a will there's a way, as they say.

Once some rules have been sorted I'm sure we'll see E.T. being played competitively, but I suspect the one issue that will come back to bite us on the ass is the XP system. I know I'll never convince you guys of that, but heh, so what!

I only came here to ask if modding E.T. was possible, and to suggest to Bani that if it were, the option to disable XP would be the best mod he could make. If he could do that then I'm sure you'd see 100's of Clan servers springing up running E.T. with XP disabled, just as almost all RTCW Clan servers are now OSP.

Peace people.

[Ph0g]

Game code affecting the most fundamental aspect of a First Person Shooter (i.e. a person's shooting ability) = wrong, simple as.

That is 100% ignorance in its finest form right there. That's like saying it is wrong for one weapon to fire differently from another. That's like saying it is wrong for soldiers to have more ammo. It's all game code, well DUH.

It's the specialization that effects the shooting, and it should. It is a great idea. The only reason people bitch about it is because they know they are too inferior to specialize, the game was already overwhelming enough for them and they suck too much to take it further.

[Kendle]

OK, I take back the "peace people" sentiment....

Phog, wtf is your problem? Wtf is ignorant about wanting a players skill to mean something? Of course you choose weapons and classes to suit the map, I'm not arguing an SMG should be equal power to a Panzer, you dipshit. And of course it's all "game code", f*cking moron.

I'm just arguing that adding code that effects aim/accuracy, however the f*ck you want to describe it, demeans one of the primary purposes of the game, an individual players ability. I know it's also all about teamwork, and I could even concede the point that XP rewards a player for doing their job well, like giving a Medic needles that restore to full health after a while, etc.

Specialisation, however, should NOT, NOT, NOT effect shooting ability and I can only conclude you've never played Clan games to anything approaching a decent level or you couldn't possibly say that. Why do you not just agree to disagree? I'm not here to convince you of a point. I came here to TELL, yes TELL you, that XP affecting shooting ability is WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! If you seriously can't see that I can only despair that pricks like you even exist in the first place.

OK, for my part, I will concede that rewarding a player (in terms of equipment, weapons, ammo) etc. could be construed as a "good thing". It probably isn't as Clans will learn to abuse it, but let's say you've convinced me on that point.

But this is a shooting game at heart. Nothing, but nothing, but nothing, should effect a players ability to shoot other than his own natural talent.

So maybe the solution is not as cut and dry as XP or not XP, but maybe a revision of XP to keep in the incentives and rewards, but also recognise THE SIMPLE BASIC TRUTH that a players ability to do the most basic of things, point his weapon at something and pull the trigger MUST remain entirely based upon his own natural abilities.

Where the f*ck do you get this crap about "inferiority" and "suck too much"? If I "sucked" I'd love the XP weapon spread reward, cos it would make me a better shooter. If you're gonna flame me at least use some f*cking LOGIC!

Sorry about this Bani. I apologise for my language, but I came here to tell you some basic truths as recognised by pretty much the entire Clan community and I get twats like Phog abusing me.

[Kendle]

That is 100% ignorance in its finest form right there. That's like saying it is wrong for one weapon to fire differently from another.

No, it's like saying "a weapon" (any weapon) in the hands of one player, fires differently than the same weapon in the hands of another player, if they've got different amounts of XP, rather than different skill.

Does a real Thompson or MP40 have a different spread when fired by one person as opposed to someone else? Of course not. One person might be a better shot than the other, but the weapons themselves are the same.

See, that's logic! Learn to make a f*cking sensible argument if you want to have one.

[Ph0g]

Phog, wtf is your problem? Wtf is ignorant about wanting a players skill to mean something? Of course you choose weapons and classes to suit the map, I'm not arguing an SMG should be equal power to a Panzer, you dipshit. And of course it's all "game code", f*cking moron.

Ahh, the ignorance is becoming overwhelming.

Are you completely retarded or only 99%? Skill to mean something!?? I can damned well guarentee you that I will beat lesser skilled players with more XP 9/10 times. Skill is extremely dominant over XP in terms of importance, XP is nothing but a bonus. Also, if everything is game code then don't bother using the term to define a specific problem...dipshit.

I see no reason for specialization not to be applied to weapon use, infact, that is the most sensible place to apply it. Soldiers get into fragging, they become more efficient in it, thus giving them an advantage over those who don't. This doesn't mean that they will become uber-machines that can slaughter players who are more skilled than them at all, not even close. It just means they will have a deserved advantage as a reward for their tactical play.

Further more, XP encourages players to get out and do something. It discourages players from camping, it discourages players from hanging out in the back, and it gives them more incentive to get out and fight. Things like this can be very valuable to clan play.

The advantage given to players is an appropriate award for their tactical efforts. This adds an entirely new element to clan play, it allows people to become more efficient in their tactical style beyond their natural skill. Clan players who want to efficiently frag enemies can put their efforts into exactly that. Players with less interest in it will obviously be at a disadvantage, but the disadvantages are not very significant for highly-skilled soldiers.

For your information, I have founded two successful clans and have participated in numerous others.

P.S. Id beat your ass in wolfenstein

[bacon]

Phog, wtf is your problem?

He had a threesome with his parents when he was a child

Seriously dude how can you come here and just say that messing with how a gun works is wrong?
If reducing the spread gives you such an advantage why don't we see more people using the sten in wolf? The sten can get 10 shots off and only requires a few headshots, so why aren't people using it?
Not everybody has perfect accuracy, like you think you do, most people rely on some lucky spread shots to get frags. With the spread reduced they'll need to aim closer to the target.

Does a real Thompson or MP40 have a different spread when fired by one person as opposed to someone else?

So you're saying that everybody in the real world has the same skill with guns? I'd like to know what planet you're living on.

[Kendle]

Oh dear, where to start!

Kendle wrote:
Does a real Thompson or MP40 have a different spread when fired by one person as opposed to someone else?

So you're saying that everybody in the real world has the same skill with guns? I'd like to know what planet you're living on.

Of course not, is everyone on this forum as retarded as Phog? XP makes the guns different, so that they're no longer the same weapon for players with different XP. Of course not every one has the same skill, and as a consequence one player may beat another, based on his or her skill alone, which is as it should be.

You make the point about Stens. People don't use Stens because they overheat and are not the best weapon for 1-on-1. But if a player wants to chose a weapon with minimal spread he has that chocie. XP makes the choice for you by reducing MP40 and Thompson weapon spread to almost Sten-like proportions. How is that right?

I won't even begin with Phog. I despair of ever penetrating that dim, empty cavern between his ears.

Anyway, having calmed down somewhat since last night, I thought I'd re-read the posts here to see if something has gone missing in all of this, and I think I can see what the problem is. Despite Phog's assertion he has been involved in Clans, I can only assume the term has different meaning on your side of the pond than it does ours. So by way of a more complete explanation, let's examine why XP is indeed a good thing for publics and a bad thing for Clan games.

First, a little trip down memory lane.

In the early days of RTCW there appeared on public servers the player now lovingly refered to as "points-whore". You know the guys I mean, the ones who would go Engy on Beach cos you get a shit load of points for planting dynamite and it's loads easier than shooting someone. Besides dynamitable objects don't shoot back and it doesn't require much skill. The true "points-whore" would even go so far as to difuse his own team-mates dynamite so he could plant his own and get the points. You'd then have Axis camping the war room so they could be the one to return the docs, again, just for the points. On Village you'd see the entire Allied team camping the Crypt (after it was blown) so they could grab the Gold. If someone else got the Gold instead, no problem, just wait by the Crypt for their team-mate to get killed, and grab the Gold when it's returned. No interest in getting it back to the truck, and even less in helping someone else get it back. I'm sure I could find examples for every other map, but I'm hoping you're getting the point by now?

So publics were a mess, and no-one was particularly interested in the "objectives", all they cared about was seeing their name at the top of the score-board at the end of the round.

Now, along comes E.T. and again we're infested with noobs. Some new to RTCW, some just new to on-line gaming. But, we don't have quite the same problem as RTCW had in the beginning (apart from all the complaint filing for accidental TK's maybe). Why is that? The answer of course is XP. And what a wonderful system it is (seriously) for public servers. You don't get an overabundance of one Class because all Classes can score shed loads of points, just for doing their jobs well. Players are, as you point out, actively encouraged to "specialise" and become good at what they do. And they are also, as you so rightly point out, encouraged to "get stuck in", all of which makes for a more exciting and balanced game. I had some truly excellent games on a German server last night, where XP was really living up to it's potential.

So, all fine and dandy, you won't get an argument from me as to the validity of XP on public servers.

But here's where we seem to be going our separate ways. I didn't come here to argue the case against XP on publics. I came here to tell you it wasn't valid for Clan games. And heres why:

In a Clan game points mean nothing, it's only the team winning the round that matters. So a points system, of any kind, is redundant. Players already "specialise" because if they didn't they wouldn't be such an asset to their team, and their team would be weaker as a result. Again, no need for any system to encourage specialisation, it's inherent in Clan games already.

Xp shouldn't be the thing that encourages players to "get out and do something", the needs of the team should be the only thing that does that (assuming that "getting out and doing something" is what's required to win the round). You could argue that XP in fact encourages a degree of "rambo-ism", the last thing you want to see in Clan games. You don't want players rushing out to fight and gain XP when they should be holding back and waiting for the opportunity to make a co-ordinated strike, or providing cover for a team-mate, etc. All your arguments, Ph0g, revolve around rewarding the "player", which is fine on publics, but in Clan matches, to coin a phrase, there is no "I" in "Team". The players "reward" comes from helping his team achieve the objective. Anything that rewards the player to the point where his team may suffer as a result is, in fact, to be positively discouraged.

The key point is:- XP is redundant in Clan games. It does not serve it's intended purpose or the purpose it serves so well on publics.

On that basis alone there should be an option to switch if off for Clan games. But it actually gets even worse. If it serves no purpose then it's continued existance becomes an "exploit". Clans will find ways to abuse it. They will find ways to rack up the XP's as quickly as possible, to give themselves an advantage of their opponents. Every advantage, no matter how slight, is worth something.

As I said, maybe Clan games are played differently where you're from, but I doubt it. All I can say is I'd never weant to join the kind of Clans you claim to have played for.

[Ph0g]

It is true that in reality there are more factors to weapon efficiency than just where you are aiming.

For example, a better soldier can reload faster. A better soldier can use strength to compensate for recoil more efficiently. A better soldier can hold his gun steady (less spread). A better soldier can readjust his aim quicker.

The XP system would simply be emulating the natural curve of combat. When a soldier gets used to doing the same thing over and over again, he gradually gets warmed up and back into the swing of things.

In this way it is perfectly logical to get the light arms bonuses for continually fragging. It works out nicely in gameplay too.

[Kendle]

Now you're starting to make some reasoned arguments. See, you can do it if you try. Your head might hurt for a while but it can be done.

Still flawed however. All these things a good player will achieve through practise anyway. A good player will crouch and fire in short bursts so as to minimise spread, for instance. XP is handing players skills they haven't earned through practise. Acceptable on public servers certainly, but not in competition, where part and parcel of the game is teams practising and scrimming to improve their skills.

And you're still looking at things from the "players" perspective. There's no "I" in "Team". An old and tired expression I know, but still true. XP becomes irrelevant and redundant at Clan level, and therefore open to abuse.

[gotenks]

the xp system(from what i can tell) is based on improving individuals performance... ph0g does have a point... the reason wolf put in the spread is because of the human part... for example if you zoom using the mauser you'll notice a figure 8 movement... that's the primary reason for your spread... i'm sorry i don't know of many marksmen (who would be the people using the mauser, if not better) who have that much play in their gun... so the aiming part of the xp system i think is a good thing... basically are you saying a e5 who just entered the military fresh from hs can do as good as an e1 or an officer, who's been shooting terrorists for a while now, at aiming

[Der Kammisar]

Here's the way I see it. In individual matches the XP wouldn't matter. Both sides start out the same, and both would whore it the same way to come out on top. What makes it bad for clan matches is that if Axis wins the first match, then they'll have an advantage in the second. This means that teams have the potential to get increasingly unbalanced over the length of the campain. I see this all the time in public ET servers. The shuffle team by XP vote is the most common vote I see.

[Ph0g]

Now you're starting to make some reasoned arguments. See, you can do it if you try. Your head might hurt for a while but it can be done.

Still flawed however. All these things a good player will achieve through practise anyway. A good player will crouch and fire in short bursts so as to minimise spread, for instance. XP is handing players skills they haven't earned through practise. Acceptable on public servers certainly, but not in competition, where part and parcel of the game is teams practising and scrimming to improve their skills.

And you're still looking at things from the "players" perspective. There's no "I" in "Team". An old and tired expression I know, but still true. XP becomes irrelevant and redundant at Clan level, and therefore open to abuse.

In your wealth of ignorance, you fail to see my entire point all together. My second post was nothing but a rant of excuse for the XP system's existance, my point to you was in the post above it, but I guess that's beyond you.

Kendle as Kammisar said, both teams start with the same amount of XP and they can whore it the same way. It is nothing but another tactical asset for players to manipulate. It does not favor any player or team over another, they all have the same oppertunities.

DerKammisar, you on the other hand do make a good point . The XP system makes it harder for a big come-back. Atleast it would if they played campaigns, but I don't think they should. I think clan matches should always be stop-watch, where that isn't an issue. If they want to play a campaign they can do so with the knowledge that the XP system may play a role in who ultimately wins.

One more thing kendle, you are even more ignorant than I said you were before because everything in my previous post about soldiers efficiently using weapons, NONE OF THOSE actions listed can be practiced by a soldier in-game. Those were all functions of a human soldier not controllable in Enemy Territory, so I guess you are even less intelligent not to realize that.

[Kendle]

In your wealth of ignorance, you fail to see my entire point all together. My second post was nothing but a rant of excuse for the XP system's existance, my point to you was in the post above it, but I guess that's beyond you.

In your wealth of ignorance you fail to see that the post you quoted was a response to the one immediately above it, but I guess that's beyond you.

Kendle as Kammisar said, both teams start with the same amount of XP and they can whore it the same way. It is nothing but another tactical asset for players to manipulate. It does not favor any player or team over another, they all have the same oppertunities.

XP is not "another tactical asset for players to manipulate", it's an irrelevance that Clans will learn to abuse, as they used to with 'nade and air-strike jumping before leagues outlawed it.

One more thing kendle, you are even more ignorant than I said you were before because everything in my previous post about soldiers efficiently using weapons, NONE OF THOSE actions listed can be practiced by a soldier in-game. Those were all functions of a human soldier not controllable in Enemy Territory, so I guess you are even less intelligent not to realize that.

Who says I didn't realise? My point, which you're obviously too dumb to realise, is that a player can practise to become better, the game shouldn't make him or her better just because he's raked up a few kills in the space of a 30 minute round. Besides which, you say NONE of those actions can be practised in game? There's an XP reward that gives you faster reload, I can crouch to steady my aim and reduce spread, I can adjust my aim quicker if I practise. I'm not a great shot, but I'm an infinately better shot than I was 18 months ago when I started playing RTCW.

Now, can we dispense with the insults please as they are all beginning to sound extremely childish (and yes I'm just as bad), after all we both know nothing about each other.