Slashdot Mirror


Changing the Rules of a 15-Year-Old Game: Quake Live Update Causes Controversy

An anonymous reader writes: As id Software aims for a larger, more mainstream audience for its free-to-play shooter Quake Live (based on 1998's Quake III Arena) on Steam, big changes are afoot. A new update was pushed out last week which adds some new, more beginner-friendly features to the game. These include weapon loadouts, which grant players a weapon of their choice when they spawn, timer icons, which indicate when the all-important powerup items will spawn, and an automatic bunny-hop to gain extra speed. The changes have been met with hostility from longtime players who prefer the "purist" rules of old and the duel format. As the writer points out, however, if the update helps attract more elite players to the gamer, it could breathe new life into a very old game.

170 comments

  1. It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by msobkow · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    TFC was the game. :)

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quake TFC with the Simpsons sound effects. Man I played that game to death. Tourneys, LAN parties. This Quakelive update nonsense is the final blow to an otherwise epic franchise. Who remembers using Quakespy anyway? Besides fossils like me.

    2. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      Uh oh, my heart just stopped... there it goes. I vividly recall the happy bday stuff too. Good times

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    3. Re:It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      TFC was the game. :)

      QWTF was the game. :)

      Fixed that for you.

    4. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That was MegaTF you dolt!

    5. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      After downloading the QWTF 2.8 and then exploring the .PAK file looks like you're right. MegaTF sounds may be found here: http://tfgames.org/sound look under barney.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    6. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to Gamespy!

    7. Re:It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Simmeh · · Score: 2

      You seem to have misspelt WFA.

    8. Re:It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah, I just loved the servers that had that nice mix of the classic divided maps together with a few semi-gimmicky ones.
      No better way to get some variety to 2fort5, bases and well6 than rock, 2nuke2 and engbat.
      That time the server admin screwed up the config and the votemap became playable was fun too, for about 5 minutes.

    9. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Bengie · · Score: 1

      I remember when it was called QuakeSpy. The days of getting snipped in the water of 2fort and asking "how did you see me?!", to get a response of "QuakeGL with a Voodoo". I eventually got a Voodoo2 12MB, which had a 4MB frame buffer and two sets of 4MB texture buffers, one for each TMU, but the textures were duplicated, so wasted memory. The Voodoo2 could process "textels", which allowed a single layer of transparent textures with almost no performance cost. I purchased an after market Stealth cooler, because the basic card didn't use a heatsink

      I used that Voodoo2 all the way into CounterStrike. I played on the first public beta. At many times, there were no people online playing CS, so I would hang out in the lowest ping server waiting. With about 3-8 CS servers to choose from, there wasn't much choice. It seems there are a few more CS servers these days.

    10. Re:It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by LoRdTAW · · Score: 1

      Oh man, WFA. Those were the days. From there it was off to TFC and then CS beta 2/3.

    11. Re:It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by msobkow · · Score: 1

      I have no idea how many weekends we got together for a night at the office for a TFC fest. We used to have about a dozen regular players, so it was enough to keep things fun without overloading the server at the office. Our bosses were big into gaming, so all the machines were equipped with 3D cards for those weekend gatherings.

      Good times, man, good times.

      For me, that was the heyday of gaming. But to be honest, it was the people that made it so much fun; the games were actually relatively primitive when compared to modern eye-candy.

      --
      I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    12. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by cyberchondriac · · Score: 1

      Oh man, I remember those days. I was in a couple of clans. I remember the first time I fired up Quake in GL mode with my new 3DFX card, I almost spooged;, it's amazing how good even just 640x480 looked back then, when the default was what- 320-x200 I think? It was fun picking people in or out of the water and seeing their bewilderment.. for a while. But overall, good times., good times. I've never found anything else as fun as the original Quake, despite it's lack of a railgun.

      --

      Look back up at my post, now look back down, you're on the Internet. Now look back up. I'm a signature.
    13. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      Agreed - I held off until well into Quake 2 (Weapons Factory MOD) before I got the vidcard and OpenGL bump, and it difference was astounding...

      And yeah, I did it because suddenly I kept getting sniped even in the darkest corners until I did upgrade. :/

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    14. Re:It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by easyTree · · Score: 1

      TFC was the game for wallhacking n00bz0rs :)

      FTFY :P

    15. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by ildon · · Score: 1

      QWTF was the originator of Birthday Mode. From the TF 2.8 QWSERVER.TXT file:

      "localinfo birthday on"
      "localinfo bd on" // Abbreviation
                      Turn ON Birthday Mode.
                      This was a hidden mode of TF coded in for TF's first birthday.
                      It changes a lot of the death messages, sounds, models, etc.

    16. Re: It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by RandomSkratch · · Score: 1

      Voodoo2! That brings back memories...with the pass through cable you needed to hook up to your 2D card..

  2. How about making it more fun? by Tamran · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Or better yet, making a new game that people will buy rather than still trying to cash in on a 1998 game which is 16 years old.

    1. Re: How about making it more fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      EA would just re-release it and call it a new game. At least this way they're being honest.

    2. Re: How about making it more fun? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Funny

      You're way too hard on them. That's not all they do before releasing the game.

      They'd also slap the current year onto the title. How else would you know it's a new game? From looking at it? Please...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:How about making it more fun? by future+assassin · · Score: 1

      Give Xonotic a try http://www.xonotic.org/. From normal weapons, to minsta. to shot gun and camping rifle only servers to servers with vehicles.

      --
      by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
    4. Re: How about making it more fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I, for one, like a steep learning curve.

      I also play Dark Souls.

    5. Re:How about making it more fun? by i.r.id10t · · Score: 1

      And yet, some of us still play QuakeWorld on a regular basis. There are still servers out there, setting up LAN play is trivial, and for me the fun has always been playing with others - I've only played single player enough to figure out controls, learn a few maps, and test moves out.

      --
      Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
    6. Re: How about making it more fun? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      would it? are any of the 20 different call of duty games any more than re-releasing the same game over and over, with slightly new graphics and maps?? How is this any different?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    7. Re:How about making it more fun? by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      Ill be honest I havent played it since 2001 as Q3arena, I was taking my CCNA and we would spend 1/2 the class doing the work, and the other 1/2 fraging the teacher.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    8. Re:How about making it more fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or better yet, making a new game that people will buy rather than still trying to cash in on a 1998 game which is 16 years old.

      As id Software aims for a larger, more mainstream audience for its free-to-play shooter[...]

      What, you couldn't even read the first sentence of TFS?

    9. Re:How about making it more fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a horrible typo. Q3A was released on the last month of 1999. It's nowhere near 1998.

    10. Re:How about making it more fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, at least you weren't shagging the teacher...

    11. Re:How about making it more fun? by easyTree · · Score: 1

      hello?

    12. Re:How about making it more fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      why? these game drones will buy whatever we put out. call it version 3.23.598.27.572 beta and they'll throw money at us. again and again and again.
      they'll even give us money for preorders. they'll pay us for something that does not exist yet.
      we don't even have to make it any better. we just keep one guy around now to copy/paste move things around so it looks different. and sell it again.

      and we're going to keep doing that until the very end. its easy money and we like money.

      now go buy the updated version you little shit. it's got new weapon skins.

    13. Re: How about making it more fun? by Finite9 · · Score: 1

      really, Quake Live is the ultimate fps deathmatch skill game. You can't take any other modern fps storied game, and make it into the competition game that QL is. CS is the same thing but for tactical combat rather than DM/TeamDM/CTF/duel. That's why CS and Quake Live are till going strong after 16 years. Unless someone takes id tech 5 and releases a new game with heavily updated graphics that also improves even further on weapon/mod balancing,map design and network efficiency in the engine, then QL is going to stay.

      --
      "Everyone knows that vi vi vi is the number of the beast" -- Richard Stallman
    14. Re:How about making it more fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. It's free, and last I heard they were losing money on it. Not sure how you can say they are "cashing in" on a game that they support out of love for the community. (Yes there are some things you can pay for like server hosting, more extensive match histories, and additional maps, but for 99% of players the game is completely free).
      2. The changes are intended to make it more fun by making it more accessible to new users without harming existing users. Strafe jumping isn't really a core skill of the game. Map sense, item control, and aim are. All the top level players were already perfect at strafe jumping and item timing. These changes will have no effect on them in the short term, but in the long term could bring in some new blood for them to play against, thus extending the game's life.

  3. It ain't no Team Fortress Classic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kaizen bitch

  4. The problem with Quake live is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that when I originally heard it I thought they were going to basically make the 'real' sequel to quake 3, and redo all the graphics/models /w modern tech, but it's just Q3A with a web interface and less mods/flexibility of the original.

    1. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by epyT-R · · Score: 2

      Yup. People got lazy and stopped hosting quake3 servers. Today's gamers want it spoonfed through a needle, now, and newbified. There are only a few up now which is too bad.

      Xonotic is an alright replacement, but the weapons aren't delineated enough. This is because there are too many, creating too much overlap in use. Also, the auto bunnyhop and my little pony models have to go. That brony shit has to die.

    2. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      oh yeah you were so l337 hosting your own quake 3 server, it was totally hard and badass, kids these days are just drones amirite?!

    3. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      kids these days are just drones amirite?!.

      Perhaps, it might explain why they're fatter and slower than their parents were. At least if they were busybodies they'd be moving around. Why do you hate America?

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    4. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by anavictoriasaavedra · · Score: 1

      Spot-on. You'd have my mod points if I had any. I miss those days when you could host your own Q3A or UT server. Sad shift.

    5. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you possibly "miss those days when you could host your own" when people are hosting their own Q3A and UT servers online RIGHT NOW. There are still hundreds of servers.

    6. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Maybe what we need is a distributed (and Free) replacement server browser.

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    7. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by JackieBrown · · Score: 1

      Perhaps, it might explain why they're fatter and slower than their parents were. At least if they were busybodies they'd be moving around. Why do you hate America?

      Probably ties in with the mentality of calling video games sports
      http://games.slashdot.org/comm...

    8. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GameRanger. It's not distributed, but it's free. It uses master server browsers if available, but it also keeps its own list of user-hosted games. It also hosts chat rooms where you can organize games with your friends. And it's not exclusive to GR users, either. You can hand out your IP and people can connect without signing in to the GR client.

    9. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      The words "automatic bunny-hop" immediately labelled the change as pukeworthy in my mind. The fuck? We already have auto-run, so the "logical" progression is auto-bunnyhop? Aren't there any circumstances where you *don't* want to be jumping around? I'd be tempted to make a level where the entire map has a mass of whirling saw blades an inch above your head.

      Of course, it would be impossible to play a *game* on the map...

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    10. Re: The problem with Quake live is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you said "host my own quake server" I thought you meant inside your own home, like we did back in my day.

      We'd have to walk upstairs, both ways just to get access to the console. But we like it that way.

      You kids with your hosted solutions and what not. Get off my LAN.

    11. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by Cederic · · Score: 2

      The real issue is the bunny hopping in the first place.

      Rewarding people jerking around like epilectic cocks is just shit game design. Get your spasms off my fucking screen, I'm trying to play a game here.

    12. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Uh.. yeah, that's exactly what I said.

    13. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      haha yeah..I have to admit, the death sounds are funny...sampled from the show and mutilated..

    14. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Or you could just learn to kill them. Abusers make easy frags.

    15. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by epyT-R · · Score: 1

      Yeah.. instead of timing your jumps, now you just hold down the jump key.

    16. Re:The problem with Quake live is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > that when I originally heard it I thought they were going to basically make the 'real' sequel to quake 3

      Not sure where you heard that. From day one of "Quake Zero's" announcement it was intended to be a free-to-play, ad-supported browser-port of Quake III Arena, with minor gameplay changes to make it more competitive. Most of the original changes were straight out of OSP/CPMA. At no point did Id ever say it was supposed to have updated graphics or a new engine or anything like that.

  5. Doom by boredom by zephvark · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's the same thing that's taken down games like World of Warcraft. They kept making it easier and easier, hoping to gain more players. After a while, the game is just too simple and repetitive to interest anyone. The whole thing just collapses.

    Yeah, WoW is technically still around, but the players have been dropping out so badly that they have to consolidate realms now, instead of bringing out new ones. Even so, it's alarmingly vacant.

    1. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      WoW was repetitive in the beginning. For example, repetitive tedious raid trash.

      Not so much now. And they've added a ton of innovative options for quests like vehicle modes, story modes, and more.

      Obviously you've believed the rants, but you know what? Harder is not better, and the game is worth playing.

    2. Re:Doom by boredom by gweihir · · Score: 2

      That is exactly the problem. Making it easier does not attract many besides a few cretins that do not understand the concept of "skill". At the same time, the easier it gets the less challenge for those that actually want some challenge. Original WoW was extremely hard sometimes, but you felt you really had accomplished something and remember things years later. I once tanked Scholomance with my Shaman. (Possible, but do not ask how often we died in the boss-fights.) These days, things are either easy or impossible. That is not fun at all.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    3. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It worked. On release it was far easier than EQ1 for example and then they tried to make EQ1 and EQ2 easier and easier, too. I miss the times when you simple couldn't rush into a new area and had to proceed carefully.

    4. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... the game is just too simple and repetitive to interest anyone ...

      When 'Quake 3' was released, reviews described it as more eye-candy than game. It doesn't have the power-ups of 'Duke 3D'. It doesn't have the teamwork of 'Counter-strike'. I think also, the level-maps were small.

    5. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      WoW was never hard. It was a grind. The hardest part about WoW was getting 39 dumbasses to pay attention and move out of the fire. Other than that it was basically dance dance revolution.

    6. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, these days the first few raid encounters (normal and heroic; not talking LFR) start out easy, and then you soon enough hit some walls that will get gradually easier once your raid team learns the encounter mechanics and get better at both the fight and using their class. Even though some of the encounters are very hard, none of them are impossible. And why wouldn't you feel a sense of accomplishment spending weeks/months learning and beating an encounter now? At least it's more fun than spending months grinding resist gear (yay, the good old days). Sure, you get showered in purples the second you reach max level, but hell, that's just a color now. You don't get the top tier gear for free now either. And let's not talk about the silly amounts of achievements and other things you can do in the game now. There's something for everyone.

    7. Re:Doom by boredom by haqrboi · · Score: 3

      Simple and repetitive? That's how it was long ago (silly amounts of pointless grinding for months, 40 man raids where you needed maybe 10 good players, and the rest just had to avoid stepping in shit). The raid mechanics in normal and heroic raids are actually interesting and challenging now, unlike way back when. Or maybe you want to claim that any noob can just go in and faceroll all the way through the heroic raids? I think the reason for wow losing players is more that there are an increasing number of fun alternatives available now, and that, even though some of us think wow good, it's nice with a change of scenery after years of playing.

    8. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      WoW hard? Maybe in the beta, never played that. However, WoW gained it's insanely huge marketshare due to polish and easy grind to gain new levels. WoW made modern RPGs into an "follow the quest arrow to succeed"-type of game. A system where it's almost impossible NOT to level up.

      In its day, this was brilliant, since quest-writers never really learnt how to create engaging and meaningful quests anyways, and most people just wanted rewards for their playtime.

      WoW evolved from EverQuest which evolved from the text-based MUD/MOO-realms. If you'd like some perspective, there were text-based MUDs in the early 90s that cost money BOTH to play (ie. monthly costs) AND to buy special PvP equipment and whatnot. People lost their education and careers over these things then too. Just not en-masse as today. The games were hugely innovative and varied, compared to today's standard fare, wether it be RPGs or first person shooters. Incidentally these two are starting to converge into an unholy mix of blandness.

      There are hugely innovative games today as well. As always, they are "hard" to find.
      One example (non-RPG) is: Left 4 Dead 2
      A good example of a truly innovative / ground-breaking RPG: the Ultima Underworld series

      Such games can always be picked up again and played, again and again. Especially L4D2 is a type of game in which you can play a thousand games and still learn something new on your 1001th attempt. Everything in the game is incredibly balanced to favour the experienced, as true games should be. To become experienced should be its own reward, not what shiny armour you have spent real $$$ to purchase through an online "store" (idiot-tax).

      Sadly, the add-ons and distributed server system of L4D2 is making the game age, as more and more servers are posted as "official", but full of cheats and game-breaking changes. This can be fixed, but the community is really waiting for L4D3, hoping it will continue to innovate. Only time will tell.

    9. Re:Doom by boredom by haqrboi · · Score: 1

      See, I think this is one of the points where people always clash; levelling and end-game. Levelling in WoW has indeed become incredibly easy, I'll give you that. But a large group of players see the actual game as all the stuff that happens after you reach max level.

      So yes, by your definition, WoW is easy, but seen by the players that see end-game as the actual game, it is not. And no, if you say it isn't hard, either you haven't played it for years, or you have a super-hardcore guild that can actually kill everything on heroic without breaking a sweat. There aren't a lot of those guilds around.

      About quest quality, for something else entirely, try giving The Secret World a try. The questing/levelling experience is very nice, with nice story, plot and atmosphere. The end-game is incredibly boring and grindy after a while, though, so you might not want to get too much into that. It's also incredibly buggy in some areas.

    10. Re:Doom by boredom by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      These days, things are either easy or impossible. That is not fun at all.

      This.

      Too easy or too hard are both unfun. There is a right degree of difficulty, and it is not the same for everyone.
      Publishers who make their games easier to help newbies get into the game will lose veteran players who get bored.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    11. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, so much this. That seems to be the hardest part in every MMO really ... finding 10/20/25/40 other people who aren't just plain simple.

    12. Re:Doom by boredom by danknight48 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      WoW was repetitive in the beginning.

      It was hard and required some skill. Thats what made it enjoyable.

      And they've added a ton of innovative options for quests like vehicle modes, story modes, and more.

      All to slow the progression of the game down, essentially making you subscribe for longer.
      Instances now require you to wait for "storyline" triggers, even if you have played them 100 times over.

      Obviously you've believed the rants, but you know what? Harder is not better, and the game is worth playing.

      I left WoW a few years back for the sole reason it was "too easy, too casual" and the ingame gear rewards meant nothing as anyone can achieve them if they have time.

      I'd love to see the current player base try the original ragnaros as level 60's in vanilla. Its hard yes, but so much more rewarding when you win.

      In regards to the Quake Live changes.
      Its simply a case of trying to merge gamers from the "easy game that lasts 4 hours and tells you how to play with cutscenes" console background into the PC "Rewarding you for mastering a game using your own initiative" market.
      I can see why they are doing it, just a shame they have to numb the game down that fucking much to accommodate the ADHD community of console gamers.

    13. Re:Doom by boredom by dywolf · · Score: 2

      "It was hard" ... ...
      No it most definitely wasnt. everyone who's said it's too easy now, its too casual, it was better back then.....is full of it.
      This pretty much perfectly describes you folks: http://www.darklegacycomics.co...

      --
      The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
    14. Re:Doom by boredom by portwojc · · Score: 1

      It worked for Star Wars Galaxies it'll work for Quake Live.

    15. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not quite. WoW is a different type of game. The problem with FPS games in a LONG established community is that eventually only the most obsessed fans remain. Distilled down to the 'hardcore' players you might say. Over the years those players leave and no one replaces them, like a white dwarf star slowly cooling it may take many years, but it will eventually cool down to a lifeless husk.

      Attempting to join in on the 'scene' in these twitchy FPS games is an exercise in frustration. You missed the curve on people learning the skills and now you are faced with the literal hardcore players as your opponents and never got the chance to cut your teeth with fellow newbies. Unless you provide some sort of avenue for new blood to refresh the hardened players who are trickling away, you will end up with that dark lifeless husk of a game, and that's no fun for anyone.

    16. Re:Doom by boredom by silentcoder · · Score: 1

      I'd say the main reason is that WoD has been delayed way too long, this is the longest expansion lull in the history of the game... frankly, we've done everything in there a million times and even veterans like me (and my wife) have stopped playing until 6.0 drops.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    17. Re:Doom by boredom by gstoddart · · Score: 2

      Ford was vague in explaining exactly how his plan would be paid for. He cited a number of funding options, including money from senior levels of government, development charges, the sale of air rights and asset sales.

      Well, speaking as one of the skill-less cretins ... many video games (especially a FPS) left me in the dust years ago. I simply can't play them.

      I don't have the ability to operate all of the buttons at once, and can't do the fine grained aiming and the like.

      I'm just too old and slow, and the dexterity isn't there. I'm not saying an on-line game should be dumbed down to my level, but for an offline game, if the game doesn't have some rubber banding to account for my complete lack of skill, I won't even play it.

      So, either you make something which needs m4d sk1ll5, and only a small amount of the potential market will ever play your game ... or you figure out how to make it appealing to more people, possibly at the risk of losing some of the hardcore gamers. But, who's the bigger market?

      It's games like this why I simply have no interest in playing any form of online game. Because after the first 10 minutes when I've demonstrated I'm just a sitting duck, I give up and stop playing entirely.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    18. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow was never really hard. It didn't require a group to progress to max level. Which turned millions of people with no concept on how they fit in a group let alone a raid loose trying to join raids. Which created artificial hardness simply because most players didn't get it. It was more frustrating because of the people you had to put up with in order to raid.

      However, raids did get easier. I mean they dropped them from 40 to ten players. They gave every non pure dps class the ability to fill just about every roll, sometimes better then the pure classes. Every expansion updated the game to make players an order of magnitude more powerful. Yeah managing 40 players was hard. EQ raids had 72 max and people still did it. Wow devs turned pretty much every class into a rotation class, because watching timers and hitting buttons in one order over and over made you more skillful or something.

      The game was boring long long ago, and people were leaving during vanilla. So it's not like making it easier necessarily caused it to hemorrhage players, but every-time you drastically change things you're going to lose people at the top of the game that realize they invested a lot of time to have blizzard pull the rug out from under them. Keep doing it long enough and sustaining guilds becomes very very hard which it did on lower population and hugely skewed servers especially when they opened transfers anywhere. I know it caused the guild I used to play for to break up, after they couldn't get server recruits anymore they transferred off en-mass but it was already too late then, they lasted one more raid zone and people were too burnt out on keeping it running to go on. Wow was a fun game, and was harder at the beginning (if you never experienced nax40 then how would you even know if there was a difference?) but it was always fairly easy compared to games before it in order to make it mass market.

    19. Re:Doom by boredom by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      The problem is, the games become exclusionary - as the general skill levels of those who were there in the beginning goes up, new players are excluded because they simply cannot compete.

      A new player with no skills and just learning by playing around has no chance to do so if they keep dying within 5 seconds of spawning. Sure, you can have level-based matching, but if there aren't many newcomers coming in, then it's just a painful wait at the match screen trying to hope the one other guy plays today as well.

      Heck, there are some that say if you don't play a multiplayer game since launch day, beyond the first week it's pointless because not only would you never catch up, you can't even start because getting pwned within 5 seconds means you learn nothing and after a few tries, you give up in frustration.

      For success, you need a game where newcomers are constantly coming in and providing an environment where they can learn and get the necessary skills.

    20. Re:Doom by boredom by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      I've found no matter how "easy" a game is, people will push the limits until they get killed. So whether its original EQ where you need a full group to deal with singleton yard trash, or recent WoW where you destroy stuff that's near-skull level (or even beyond skull level) solo, you are always pushing.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    21. Re:Doom by boredom by fibonacci8 · · Score: 1

      It was hard and required some skill. Thats what made it enjoyable.

      It was easy and required less skill than its precursors like Everquest, Ultima Online, and Anarchy Online. That's what made it enjoyable to players under the age of 8. About the only thing at the time requiring less skill and with less difficulty was Asheron's Call.

      --
      Inheritance is the sincerest form of nepotism.
    22. Re:Doom by boredom by DudemanX · · Score: 1

      The game used to have 5-man dungeons that were challenging and fun to me and 4 other people using voice coms. Dungeons actually required awareness, tactics, and co-ordination. Getting extra pulls meant certain death in most cases. Failing to keep a particular mob sheeped could lead to death in many cases.

      These days you're magically teleported to a dungeon with the 4 other people whom you've never met and will never meet again and no one says a word to each other. So without any communication the Tank then proceeds to go pull 3+ groups at a time. The dungeon then gets finished in 15 minutes without anyone saying a word and with 2 AFK DPS and healer that keeps DCing.

      How anyone thinks the game isn't easier or that we're making this shit up because of "nostalgia" is mind-boggling.

    23. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was hard and required some skill. Thats what made it enjoyable.

      No, to all of this. Wasn't hard. Just tedious. And maybe you enjoyed it for those reasons, but all the people I know enjoyed it for the social experience.

      And hated it. Really hard with 40 people to get a group together without some friction. Which is a difficulty, but not one I consider worth enjoying.

      All to slow the progression of the game down, essentially making you subscribe for longer.
      Instances now require you to wait for "storyline" triggers, even if you have played them 100 times over.

      No, to give you things to do besides just mindlessly spam buttons, and yeah, sorry they haven't adapted the game to recognize that some people don't want to repeat the story-telling. Which was added for a reason.

      I left WoW a few years back for the sole reason it was "too easy, too casual" and the ingame gear rewards meant nothing as anyone can achieve them if they have time.

      Oh goodness, no, you mean if you put time into doing something, you can get it? THE HORRORS! Only special snowflakes like you should get the stuff you want!

      Look, I get it, you know nothing about the game as it is, you just think you do.

      I'd love to see the current player base try the original ragnaros as level 60's in vanilla. Its hard yes, but so much more rewarding when you win.

      I'd love to see you try Garrosh and tell me it's not rewarding.

      PS, you can't skip that story event either.

    24. Re:Doom by boredom by geekoid · · Score: 1

      wow was never hard, that's what made it popular, and better, then previous games like EQ.

      Oh, an attack on people who use console.
      The real problem is, you are an asshole.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    25. Re:Doom by boredom by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      even more. if you ARE one of those first players at the top of the skill ladder. you can't ever take a break from the game or you're left so far behind quickly.

      there's several games i took a break from. and now there's just no real way to get back into them. i missed too much.
      my knowledge on the game got obsolete. and most of them require multiple payments, expansions, upgrades, etc... to even have a chance to get back up.

      you become the charity case for your friends too. hey guy is back in after 6 months! lets help him get caught up! and they throw you thru things so fast you never know what you missed.

    26. Re:Doom by boredom by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      There's a straightforward solution for this, a la the English football league balancings: if you keep winning, you get bumped up, and if you keep losing, you get bumped down. Requires an Xbox Live-style central matching mechanism, but it does make griefing less rewarding.

      You just have to have a way to keep players at different levels from even seeing each other.

    27. Re:Doom by boredom by danknight48 · · Score: 1

      Oh, an attack on people who use console.
      The real problem is, you are an asshole.

      And clearly, your one of those "console gamers". Did i hit a nerve?

    28. Re:Doom by boredom by Lonewolf666 · · Score: 1

      I can see your idea working in some e-sports league where people are there for the PVP challenge.

      Not so much in a MMO where friends/clans want to do PVE and play together.

      From what I've read about WOW (to use great-great-GP's example) its most difficult content was designed for 40 person raids. I guess it is difficult enough to gather 40 people to show up at raid time. If an unspecified proportion of them get shifted to higher or lower player classes, it might become impossible. And outright banning some people from trying those raids "because they are not good enough" would probably not good marketing.

      --
      C - the footgun of programming languages
    29. Re:Doom by boredom by ildon · · Score: 1

      The highest levels of PvE and PvP content in WoW are more difficult than they've ever been. Heroic Paragons and Heroic Blackfuse are some of the most difficult raid encounters ever released (excepting M'uru or pre-nerf C'thun, the latter of which was mathematically proven to be impossible to kill). Accessible on the low end != easy on the top end. The difficulty is there for those who seek it.

  6. Looks like a good move by cold+fjord · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They are adding the new while making the previous behavior accessible. FTA:

    Classic Quake Live isn't being abandoned

    While these changes are part of the new default Quake Live ruleset, the majority of them can be avoided by opting for Classic ruleset games. All the public Duel servers will run in Classic mode, and Create Match will let subscribers pick from Quake Live, Classic and Turbo rulesets. That's another thing – PQL (Promode Quake Live) is now called Turbo. As the Quake Live team explain it: "We hope that running our FFA [Free For All] and Teamplay servers with these new, fun, and accessible mechanics that we can begin to build a larger base of players who could then try their luck at the Classic Duel experience."

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    1. Re:Looks like a good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You have to have premium to access those servers, though.

    2. Re:Looks like a good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have to have premium to access those servers, though.

      And even then, they're unranked.

    3. Re:Looks like a good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was going to say that it would be a dick move to remove it entirely.
      But hey are not doing such a thing, it is just another option for players.

      Is it good? Of course it is, more people might play it, which means less chance of it probably failing, which would end up going back to the classic servers instead of hosted if it was terminated.
      Plus, that introduces loads of newbs to snipe. They'll learn. Some might get good. Others will be easy scores.

    4. Re:Looks like a good move by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, let's split an already tiny userbase. That'll help the game get traction.

    5. Re:Looks like a good move by dkman · · Score: 1

      This should have been in the summary.

      We're changing the default rule set, but making these changes options so you can run a server without them.

      Sounds like a win win to me. Nothing to bitch about here, move along.

      --
      I refuse to sign
  7. cheap gameplay changes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They are experimenting in gameplay on an already paid for codebase, for a free game. I'm not complaining.

  8. How about making it more fun? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, because I'm LOVING the latest SimCity, and totally don't wish they stuck to the SC2k/SC3k format

  9. Broken summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    "if the update helps attract more elite players to the gamer, it could breathe new life into a very old game." Makes no sense either way, they fucked up on this.

    1. Re:Broken summary by gweihir · · Score: 2

      I think they mean players that think they are "elite", but are anything but. In short they want the pseudos, those with big egos and small skill. Easy games and true elite does not go together.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  10. Bad Move (or, they want out) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just like the NGE for Star Wars Galaxy, any 'major shift' to the game in order to attract a new audience alienates your current audience. You're basically saying 'screw you guys, we want some else.'

    If that's the truth, then go for it. If the current audience is insufficient to proceed, then go for it. If you'd like to keep the people you have...you'd better not do it.

    It's possible the maintainers of Quake Live are simply done with the project. Rather than shut the doors while there are still people playing, they need to chase everyone away first. That would make a whole lot more sense than trying to attract people to a 15-year-old game by changing it. The only people who are going to play a 15-year-old game are the ones who are trying to relive the 'glory days.' If you change it, they are no longer the 'glory days.'

    1. Re:Bad Move (or, they want out) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just like the NGE for Star Wars Galaxy, any 'major shift' to the game in order to attract a new audience alienates your current audience. You're basically saying 'screw you guys, we want some else.'

      This. "Small sliver" of the fanbase, my ass, Mr. Smedley!
      /bria4life!

    2. Re:Bad Move (or, they want out) by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

      Just like the NGE for Star Wars Galaxy

      Neon Genesis Evangelion!? AWESOME!

      --
      Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  11. hate bunny hop by Osgeld · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    the rest I could not care about, bunny hopping is for moron noobs that cant make it 5 feet without getting their asses shot off

    its even dumber in other games, like when you see a team of nazi's bunny hopping cross the battlefield

    1. Re:hate bunny hop by epyT-R · · Score: 4, Insightful

      bunny hopping and strafe jumping became part of the skillset that players had to master. What's the big deal? It wasn't unstoppable and it gave your position away. Abusers routinely got their asses handed to them. All of the elite players used it too, esp for specific jumps that weren't normally possible.

    2. Re:hate bunny hop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is there an Easter Bunny character available? Nothing beats a bunny with an egg basket and rocket launcher!

  12. Wait... by Arkh89 · · Score: 1

    [OA player here]
    They allowed bunny hopping to do the same as strafe-jumping? seriously?
    Bye bye defrag...

    1. Re:Wait... by __1200333 · · Score: 1

      It's not the same. You still go faster when doing strafe jumps. The bunny-hop just allows players to move a little faster. You know... make em feel like they can play with the big boys.

  13. More "elite" players? by Chas · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If they require all these cheats (let's call them what they are) to play, how in the name of Hell are they "more elite"?

    Are they somehow empowered to greater delusions of grandeur?

    Or are they chasing players who're monetizing their game streaming?

    In which case FUCK them.

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
    1. Re:More "elite" players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "More elite" means "younger"

    2. Re:More "elite" players? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      "More elite" is in the same basket as "value edition" and "power user". A nice word for the opposite of what it is.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:More "elite" players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most elite are just special. Elite computer science students are unable to refill the paper tray in my experience and call for tech support because the printer is broken and there is no display on it (Because it is a screen as it says in colour: Out of paper). Not sure if that was a made up explanation for being dumb or being dumb. They are also good at trying stuff that is proven to not work under new names again and again.

      I'd guess they also chase people who watch how-to-play videos as there seem to be many. Nothing worse than having someone on ones team who plays the way it was demonstrated on video regardless if it was good (like saying 'I want to craft but I didn't find out how' while the button 'crafting tutorial' is on the screen and then complaining about the lack of help for crafters) or even pre-patch and no longer possible.

    4. Re:More "elite" players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or maybe these "elite computer science students" have enough experience with computerised devices, that they know that 99% of them are made by morons, and the wrong sequence of actions can often result in the device - whatever it might be - catching fire or exploding in their faces.

    5. Re:More "elite" players? by governorx · · Score: 1

      I strongly agree!

      How can more elite players possibly not understand the basics of movement? They would be no more than noobs.

    6. Re:More "elite" players? by Chas · · Score: 1

      Oh you are SO funny.

      Ha.

      Ha.

      Oh yes! Ha!

      --


      Chas - The one, the only.
      THANK GOD!!!
    7. Re:More "elite" players? by fafalone · · Score: 1

      If you're referring to things like startweapons or powerups timers as cheating(as if elite players can't time it in their heads)... it's got far more to do with game pace. I can't speak to Q3, but I played the Q2 Lithium mod on the standard startrockets/fasthook servers as a top tier player. Now that mod is gone and regular old baseq2 is all that's left. It's incredibly slow, you spend 50% of your time just chasing down weapons and ammo... it's boring. It's essentially a different game I have zero interest in playing.

    8. Re:More "elite" players? by rocket+rancher · · Score: 1

      If they require all these cheats (let's call them what they are) to play, how in the name of Hell are they "more elite"?

      hmmmm...interesting definition of cheat there. rocket jumping and jump strafing are possible within the rules of any quake game, including the single-player campaign. If the rules don't forbid it, how is it cheating? Being elite means (among other things) being able to recognize and exploit useful emergent behavior. That is one of the things that made the quake engine great -- it was complex enough that interesting (read: novel) phenomenon like rocket jumps could emerge from the fixed and extremely limited physics of that engine.

  14. Re:alarmingly vacant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes, they're down to a paltry 7,000,000 subscribers as of August 2014.

    Why not tell us how many subscribers YOUR kewl game has? Since you obviously know so much more than those dumb Blizzard people.

  15. Quake...the game that ruined my plans for LIFE... by MindPrison · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Man that brings back memories...

    ...Picture this: A bright young student with plans to take over the (animation) world, follows the "hip kids" word of Quake II-Lithium (until then I had no clue what the Quake games where all about)...it's like Barney Gumble from the Simpsons, he was a decent guy and a heck of a helicopter pilot before he met the brown bottles with ice cold Duff. That's me and Quake. I bought the darned CD, put it in - and was lost forever...

    I ended up using all my school money on investing in an ISDN Line (that was the *SHIT* back then when everyone else where on 14.4K dialup), found out that it still lagged more than a donkeys behind sunday mornings so I Invested in a DUAL ISDN line (that's a 64 x 2 = 128k line) and pinged the bejeezus outta the competition. That stuff cost 700$ a month + lost childhood + no school buddies + no school basically (see what it did to me? I have to write stuff like + in between words to substitute for bad grammar and such).

    So kids! Let that be a lesson for you, stay in SCHOOL! And don't let the QUAKE get you!

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  16. Sleazes by backslashdot · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The way I see it, id Software's new owners are evil because they even tried to frivolously sue John Carmack, who invented all their games and technology.

  17. How about making it more fun? by slux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They're trying to keep this old game alive and with a community. I think the initial release of Quake Live, or this move, has little to do with cashing in and very much to do with love of the game.

    Moreover, "making it more fun" is pretty much what they are attempting. It's been a known problem for a long time that a new player will get completely owned when they first try, it's just such a brutally skill-based game and a small pool of players makes large skill differences more likely in matchmaking. Few people enjoy total domination by their opponent.

    Quake 3/Quake Live used to be a living esport, now most of the big tournaments are gone. The game is beautiful, especially when played at a professional level. I'm all for any attempts to revitalize this genre so that the FPS duel might still be a thing in esports in the future. Of course the risk here is that the game becomes unrecognizeable.

  18. Does not compute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    A new update was pushed out last week which adds some new, more beginner-friendly features to the game.

    As the writer points out, however, if the update helps attract more elite players to the gamer, it could breathe new life into a very old game.

    "Beginner friendly" means driving away the elite players who do not need nerfs.. not getting them to start playing.

    1. Re:Does not compute. by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      OTOH, it's hard to attract players if the only thing they do when joining a server is getting their asses handed. It may be fun for some of the older players to play with their prey rather than having a "real" fight, but it's just no fun at all for the prey.

      The way I see it they can't win: Make the game easier and alienate the old players. Keep it the way it is and ensure no new players will come.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Does not compute. by Hamsterdan · · Score: 3

      That's why there are different servers in Q3A, based on the player's skill (last time I checked).

      Dumbing the game down to attract console players is not the way to go.

      The game speed is what made Quake & Unreal into classics. Unreal 2 and Doom 3 looked and felt like console ports (dumbed down and slow action)

      --
      I've got better things to do tonight than die.
    3. Re:Does not compute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you know, this is probably one reason i don't give a shit about 'games'...
      (i play some stupid bejeweled and such to pass the time, but otherwise, don't mess with 'real' games...)
      had a couple buddies who were HUGE into gaming, i was not... when i went by to visit, ended up (of course, what else are they doing?) playing games like football or auto racing, etc... so i NEVER played, they ALWAYS played, they knew that this controller was crappy, that you did this secret thing to get that secret thing to work, etc... knew all the little quirks and micro-timing actions to take to make the games playable... they would BEAT THE SHIT out of me in the games, NEVER giving any advice, practice, or otherwise actually helping me... i guess it was too much fun humiliating me in every game, rather than giving me a break to get up to speed to be better competition... actually, after too many of those BORING exercises, i simply stopped visiting them...
      and -no- i did NOT metaphysically deserve the unrelenting beatdowns; i would have NEVER treated them like that... for example, i could have gotten them out on a REAL tennis court (except they were couch potatoes), and made them look like fools, but i would NOT treat them like they treated me in that manner, i would have hit to their level and tried to teach them...

    4. Re:Does not compute. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Or you could, y'know, play singleplayer.

      s/games/multiplayer games/g

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:Does not compute. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      for all their self-valued 'elite skillz'. those players are death to a game.

      there's not enough of them to make any sort of profit off of as your only customer base.
      as most of them don't work/play well with others like themselves. so there is a max size for number of 'elite' players a game will have.
      and they work hard to actively drive away new players and make the game look terrible in general.

      there's tons of great old games limping along out there catering to only those 'leet' players.
      and they're all toxic 90% empty wastelands on the verge of bankruptcy for it.

      beginner friendly means kicking them to the curb so you can get some players you WILL make a profit from.
      and deny it all you like. but money is the only thing important in gaming anymore.

    6. Re:Does not compute. by LienRag · · Score: 1

      Or make "get out of my lawn" scenarios where new players go in numbers against more skilled players (who will then be "Bosses" requiring cooperative efforts to take down)...

  19. Don't see the logic of this... by RogueyWon · · Score: 1

    I've never liked Quake 3. To be honest, aside from the singleplayer modes of Quakes 2 and 4, I've never much enjoyed the Quake series. Admired them as technological accomplishments? Sure. Enjoyed other games built on the engines? Absolutely. But liked the games? No. Compared with their contemporary competitors such as Duke Nukem 3d, Unreal, Half-Life and so on, they've always felt very shallow and conservative.

    But hey, I am not the final arbiter of gaming taste. A lot of people do like the series. But by and large, they like it because it is so conservative. Quake 3/Quake Live's players are basically the people who have looked at everything in modern gaming and said "no thanks". To an extent, I sympathise. There are aspects of some modern shooters, such as 2-weapon limits, modern military settings, regenerating health systems and corridor-levels that I'm also bored to death of (though not everything is like that). But this is an audience that defines itself pretty much by its resistance to change.

    So why bother pushing changes like this? Your existing players are not only going to hate it, but they are going to compete with each other to see who can shout that they hate it the loudest (proving yourself more "hardcore" and "oldschool" than anybody else is a big part of how you navigate the social pecking order around niche games like this). And new players? It's still, under those minor changes, the same old game it always once and still both feels and looks like a legacy from another era. Counter-Strike edged out Quake 3 as the main competitive fps for good reasons. Plus it's a legacy from another era with a really, really hostile-to-beginners culture to go with it.

    If all of the above sounds hostile... it's not really meant to be. It's absolutely a good thing that there are niche games like this out there. But by and large, the absolute worst thing the developers of those long-standing niche games can do is to try to take them "mainstream". It usually just alienates the old audience without attracting a new one.

    1. Re:Don't see the logic of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "But by and large, they like it because it is so conservative. "

      This was always nonsense with regards to multiplayer quake, carmack and company wrote the book on how to design internet games. Quake with mods invented many of the genre's staples. What people loved about quake was the multiplayer, the single player was always phoned in. Quake never had a real good single player campaign or compelling universe, the good single player stopped with Doom for iD software, and you could see it in rage that they never really learned from other games that did it better.

    2. Re:Don't see the logic of this... by stealth_finger · · Score: 1

      "But by and large, they like it because it is so conservative. "

      This was always nonsense with regards to multiplayer quake, carmack and company wrote the book on how to design internet games. Quake with mods invented many of the genre's staples. What people loved about quake was the multiplayer, the single player was always phoned in. Quake never had a real good single player campaign or compelling universe, the good single player stopped with Doom for iD software, and you could see it in rage that they never really learned from other games that did it better.

      Personally I thought Quake 2 had a great single player.

      --
      Wanna buy a shirt?
      https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
    3. Re:Don't see the logic of this... by RogueyWon · · Score: 2

      In technical terms, Quake multiplayer was groundbreaking. But in gameplay terms, even by the standards of its time, it was extremely conservative. It was straightforward "shoot the other player in the face with a basic selection of weapons" deathmatch that hadn't really evolved since Doom. In contrast to the almost Spy-vs-Spy-like multiplayer in DN3D, it was extremely barebones stuff.

      Plenty of people did more interesting things in mods, of course.

    4. Re:Don't see the logic of this... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      By and large, they like it because it is so conservative NOW.

      Not on release. He never said that.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    5. Re:Don't see the logic of this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Real old schoolers remember the original Team Fortress that spawned you in a protected room surrounded by weapons before releasing you into the game. There was nothing wrong with it then. The people who are complaining aren't in it for skill, they're in it to win and would cheat at the drop of a hat if it meant they'd still win. True elites relish the challenge and would take on a foe with a rocket launcher while being armed with the starting machine gun.

  20. Robin Williams identified the problem years ago by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    This is basically the new player experience in Quake...

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:Robin Williams identified the problem years ago by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The difference between a new player and an old player is the new player only thinks everyone is cheating, but the old player can prove everyone is cheating.

  21. Re:alarmingly vacant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A dog turd on the sidewalk had at least that many flies hovering around. It has to be good you know.

    WoW isn't even a game anymore. It's something between a social sandbox, interactive tv show, and carefully crafted behavioral/visual drug.

  22. Re:alarmingly vacant? by rebelwarlock · · Score: 1

    That's down from 16,000,000 a couple years ago. So yes, that's a major loss.

  23. To quote the usual idiots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "If you don't like it go and write your own game..."

  24. Re:Quake...the game that ruined my plans for LIFE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Quake 2 was responsible for me getting such a bad result in my Computer Science degree. I didn't need to worry about dial up speed as there were plenty of LAN players happy to play.

    I didn't like Quake 3 - With quake 2 you gradually learned all the tricks like double jumps, rocket jumps etc but in quake 3 you just had these jump points which meant that in most maps people were just flying about the place and the respawn rate was much higher.

    I found some Quake 2 servers still around back in 2006 or so and still managed to do really good - I'm well into my 30s now so if there are still servers running now I doubt I'll play good because of reaction times etc. It is weird how you still remember all the tricks and the map layouts though.

  25. Re: alarmingly vacant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    7 million subscriptions =/= 7 million players.

    As someone who played EverQuest back in the day, playing 6 accounts by yourself to run through the Plane of Hate was rateer easy to do.

  26. XPilot by protonman · · Score: 0

    If they made Quake too easy, let's all play XPilot!

    http://www.xpilot.org/

    --
    The man of knowledge must be able not only to love his enemies but also to hate his friends.
  27. Re:alarmingly vacant? by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1
    --
    This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
  28. Re:Quake...the game that ruined my plans for LIFE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Third world problems...

  29. Furries by tepples · · Score: 1

    I agree that adding an anthropomorphic rabbit would be humorously apropos, but it might attract parts of the furry fandom that Idthesda might not be interested in serving.

  30. As someone who was never competitive at Quake... by damn_registrars · · Score: 2

    The changes sound like a good idea. I picked up a copy of Q3 a week or two too late and was never able to compete in multiplayer as I would be fragged into oblivion in the first .03 nanoseconds after connecting to a server. I quickly gave up and went to a different genre completely where new players were not punished so severely for not having camped out the night before release at Best Buy to be the first to own a copy (or for not playing 23 hours a day on a steady drip of red bull).

    Now, this won't really bring me to the game as my life is different now than it was 15 years ago, but I do think the changes are a good idea.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  31. You know how they could attract more players? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know how they could attract more players? Make the damn thing work in Linux like it used to. I was a huge Quake player back in the day and I never wanted to stop but when everything migrated to Live I had to stop playing because Linux isn't supported.

    1. Re:You know how they could attract more players? by nej4ugi · · Score: 1

      They were supporting OS X before (the small plugin that was necessary to play through browser was supported at least) but after the last big update they stopped and left only native windows application for it. Wine is a solution but it still sucks and seems like they're shrinking and not investing time and money into something that doesn't pay out as much as they would want to.

  32. Interesting by robstout · · Score: 1

    Of course this is going to piss off the old school players, but then again they ar eproblably still playing the original versions off of their own servers. Then again, how many new players are going to be interested in playing quake? It's been years since it was relevant.

  33. Re:As someone who was never competitive at Quake.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You were actually about 3 years and two weeks late then because almost all of the top q3 players were holdouts from quake1/quakeworld that would not play the steaming pile of shit that was quake2. It was there that they got so good. It was there that almost all the big money tournament winners came from.

    It's still the highest skill cap, fastest playing fps ever, it's a shame almost nobody plays it anymore... quakeworld that is.

  34. Overblown by Schnapple · · Score: 0

    I'm a Quake Live Pro subscriber (got a year as part of a QuakeCon package) and I've been playing Quake 3, then Quake Live, since 1999 when it was released.

    I'm sure the hardest of the hardcore players will find something to complain about but really, the changes are fine. If the changes attract a lot of new players at the expense of the old guard then fine, the game will be better for it in the long run. The real test will be when the game hits Steam soon and a critical mass of people will have access to it. And like even the article points out - there's still a way to play the old way, and the most popular mode - duels - is unchanged.

    And really, the original Quake 3 game has been open source for nine years now, if the old guard really wants to all you would need to do is make a version that uses Quake 3's assets but adds a matchmaking system or a server browser that's up to 2014 standards. To some extent that's what the original goal of Quake Live was, whether or not it ever achieved that is debatable but I know I can fire up QL and be in a game I like in less than a minute. If you think you can do better, go for it.

    And as I write that it occurs to me that this is to some extent what the OpenArena project was supposed to be about but nine years in all we have is a dodgy 0.8 release and a core group of developers who are reportedly representative of the absolute worst qualities of the open source movement (slow to release, hostile to newcomers, actively sabotaging any FOSS ports that aren't Linux, etc.). So to some extent people who did think they could do better (albeit slightly different aims - OA wants to not rely on Q3 assets) have tried and not really gotten much of anywhere with it.

    1. Re:Overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Very old school hardcore player here. It should be remembered that in the original TF for QuakeWorld (that was Quake for those using this fancy new internet thing with it's TCP/IP stack to multiplayer) spawned you in a protected room surrounded by weapons. You would get fully equipped before entering play, a tradition that TFC and TF2 some 17ish years later continue. It was a fair fight that boiled down to skill and a small element of luck.

      This is much ado about nothing. A true elite player should be able to win no matter when their opponent gets a better weapon. That is assuming that these so called "elite" players are actually elite and not egomaniacs who would cheat at the drop of a hat because it was never about skill or a fair fight.

    2. Re:Overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm also a QL Pro subscriber. Some people are complaining, but I agree that it's mostly overblown.

      Clan Arena is basically unchanged, they really just nerfed the LG a bit and added the Heavy Machine Gun.

      FFA is the most changed, where they added item timers, and weapons load outs. Of those 2 major changes, only the weapon load out is an issue, mostly because they allow you to get weapons that weren't originally available on a particular map. The item timers aren't precise enough to make a difference against someone who has the item timing down. Another change is the addition of Ammo Packs, which only annoy me because they've replaced actual weapon locations on some of the maps. For example there is a Ammo Pack in the location the upper Rocket Launcher on Asylum.

      The Autohop isn't effective enough to make a difference against someone who can do even the most basic of strafejumping.

      For me the 2 big issues they haven't address are 1. It's Windows Only, and 2. The match making and Tiers are messed up. Almost everyone is T3 or T4. What they need to do is make 4 or 5 tiers out of those 2 tiers and dump T1 and T2 because almost no one is in there anyhow.

    3. Re:Overblown by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And as I write that it occurs to me that this is to some extent what the OpenArena project was supposed to be about but nine years in all we have is a dodgy 0.8 release and a core group of developers who are reportedly representative of the absolute worst qualities of the open source movement (slow to release, hostile to newcomers, actively sabotaging any FOSS ports that aren't Linux, etc.). So to some extent people who did think they could do better (albeit slightly different aims - OA wants to not rely on Q3 assets) have tried and not really gotten much of anywhere with it.

      The "non-Linux sabotaging" comes from Ioquake3's smug SDL zealotry.

    4. Re:Overblown by Schnapple · · Score: 0
      I have to disagree with you there.

      My take on OpenArena was based largely on this comment from last year which reads in part:

      I had done all the work necessary to update the OpenArena port to the latest version at the time, and then played "follow the patchlevels cause their dev practices suck" for several more versions. I edited their wiki, writing out directions for getting the game running from source on FreeBSD, which was pretty easy to do...Which they promptly deleted and said, "just use the Linux version."

      When I was working on the port I asked them repeatedly what the build deps were and such...They didn't know. They generally just banged on it and installed stuff until OA built and ran. Never once did they actually document what it took to build the game. They were truly representative of the kids-table level of QA/RE that seems to be commonplace in the small-project OSS development community at large. How many times did they make a major release, followed quickly by several patches to fix minor oversights that resulted in major problems and could have been avoided with checklist of "what to check before we release?"

      The person who you reference, Time Doctor, who heads up the ioquake3 project, is the polar opposite: someone who's probably done more for Linux gaming than just about every other developer combined. Also, the original posted said he had to switch to using ioquake3's code for the FreeBSD port because of the OA assholes.

      Time Doctor posted a follow-up comment:

      The experience of working with the OpenArena project was similar to that described by HEMI_426. At this point they have cut off communication with us and I would be surprised, but happy, if that relationship ever improves.

      So, now we are attempting to create our own freely distributable, creative commons licensed, game to distribute whenever anyone downloads ioquake3 that won't be "adults only" and won't have anything to do with OpenArena's direction.

      Time Doctor is widely credited as being the "go to" person if you want to make a Linux port of your game and don't know how. He's personally responsible for the Humble Bundle having Linux games, which is one of the biggest catalyst for the recent surge in Linux gaming and may have led to SteamOS.

      Your AC hit and run bashing makes me wonder if you're part of the OA project, which if true basically means that no, it hasn't changed.

  35. Re:Quake...the game that ruined my plans for LIFE. by Tukz · · Score: 1

    Actually Barney didn't learn to fly an helicopter until after he started to drink.
    It was a gift from Homer, right before Barney went into sobriety, however short it was.

    --
    - Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
  36. 0th world problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not even a 1st world problem.

  37. You left out the iimportant detail... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it's the same detail as Planeshift and a number of other *QUOTE* 'open source projects'. It's assets produced by artists who aren't really into the open-source thing. They just found a way to utilize open source to make their sub par art seem important, but to hell with anyone else.

    It's one of the large problems with open source that is SLOWLY being remedied, but at a glacial pace compared to code. Asset designers tend to thing their creations are special compared to everyone elses, even if they themselves steal ideal, whole creative works, etc from others. It's the same sickness as the copyright industry as a whole. Our ideas are special, but those ideals we created ours off should be free. Just look at Disney for the shining controlling example. There's plenty of others as well.

    I'd give you change, but all I've got is 2 cents.

  38. Fans bitch about change by geekoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

    news at 11.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  39. Re:Quake...the game that ruined my plans for LIFE. by rhazz · · Score: 1

    so I Invested in a DUAL ISDN line (that's a 64 x 2 = 128k line) and pinged the bejeezus outta the competition

    Why didn't you just download and use cheats? Paying $700 a month for something that will give you an automatic advantage over most players is pretty much the same thing in spirit, no?

  40. Chess is difficult too at first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody is dumbing down chess to make it more "accessible." Still, you can promote the development of new chess players. If the game is worth promoting, devote some real thought into its promotion.

  41. Re:As someone who was never competitive at Quake.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I got into Q3 a few years late. I was so interested in the game that I decided to learn it instead of quitting it. It took time and dedication that only a grad student without kids can muster, but I gradually saw myself climb in the deathmatch ladders. I've never reached the upper echelons of eliteness but managed to be a pretty efficient player. The problem is that as in every other sport or game, it takes lots of practice to be good. You can't be good at tennis or chess on your first game.

    Perhaps what Q3 lacked the most was a way to rank and match players. Instead I just found a server with a nice community who helped me be my best.

  42. Oi! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Confidence is a preference for the habitual player
    Of what is known as
    (Quake Live)
    And giblet soup can't be avoided
    If you take a route straight through what is known as
    (Quake Live)

    John's got Mountain Dew he gets intimidated
    By the dirty players, they love to blow him up
    (Quake Live)
    Who's that basement dweller slouching?
    You should cut down on your quarklife mate, get some exercise

    All the people
    So many people
    They all go hand in hand
    Hand in hand through their Quake Live
    Know what I mean?

  43. Re:As someone who was never competitive at Quake.. by damn_registrars · · Score: 1

    You can't be good at tennis or chess on your first game.

    Very true, but it's awfully difficult to learn tennis when you can only play against people who are in the ranks of Djokovic and Federer. Quake, all of its derivatives, and most of its contemporary clones generally had that kind of learning curve for new players. It did make the best players really exceptionally good (because they were always playing against other exceptionally good players) but it never gave anyone else a prayer of getting good.

    Instead I just found a server with a nice community who helped me be my best.

    Perhaps if I had been able to find such a community I would be looking back fondly upon Quake.

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  44. Try playing it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I see a lot of /. users offering a lot of supposition about how the changes affect the game. Play it!

    The new heavy machine gun rocks. The loadout option is nice because the Machine Gun was pretty much useless except as a last resort. The loadouts help vets (Those of you sniping with the RG all the time!) and the newbs (Those of you spamming with the RL all the time!) equally. As a constant FFA player I _love_ a chaotic death-filled game. The timers for the QD and the like are nice simply because it gives everyone the same advantages those who knew the timings had. There's a warning when it's about to regen, and everyone heads for it. The battle that ensues surrounding the QD is a blast.

    The big change no one's really mentioned is that an Ammo box is now universal. It reloads any gun you're holding. The "real world how" that might work aside, this means you're much less likely to run out of ammo for any weapon you love. This increases the ammo available to the spammers and leads to more death... which means more fun in my book!

    I've been a Teir 3/4 FFA/TDM guy for awhile now... years. I pay 'cause I don't want it to die as I love this game. I think the changes they've made increase the fun. Isn't that the goal?

    To put this comment in context I remember when Doom went 0-day on the warez BBS's and I got to play Q2 against the devs in the loft at John Carmack's plano house in '97. They WOOPED my ass. Spawn-die just over and over. I get that frustration but don't feel the changes increase that, at all... they skill match the games. If you're clicking on something orange or red... well yeah you're going to get fragged.

  45. Re:It's not Unreal Tournament either by easyTree · · Score: 1

    UT was the game skilled people played

    I liked the pr0n mod... *MONEYSHOT*

  46. Re:Quake...the game that ruined my plans for LIFE. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds very familiar. Did you by any chance go into Computer Science in Lisbon?

  47. Re:alarmingly vacant? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I added a new saying to my list.

  48. Management is killing this game by metrix007 · · Score: 1

    Random bans for no reason yet the game is rampant with trolls and grievers. The company who manages the game is useless.

    --
    If you ignore ACs because they are anonymous - you're an idiot.
  49. what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "update helps attract more elite players to the game"

    because how do you attract elite players to your game? oh yeah, dumb it down and make it noob-friendly. makes sense.

  50. Morons! by Bust0ut · · Score: 1

    Why do they call it a browser game!

    --
    He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.
  51. Re: alarmingly vacant? by muridae · · Score: 1

    Eonn, is that you?

  52. Welcome to the Cloud! by MoarSauce123 · · Score: 1

    This is what you get from "going all in" with the cloud. While services like Steam are widely popular and provide access to games at a reasonably low price it comes with a new set of rules. And those rules include that the service and software provided can change at any time or go away entirely. If you don't like that then go an buy the original version of the game and play that. Alternatively, get organized and stop playing the new version of the game reminding EA every single day why you do that. Maybe they change their mind or maybe they offer both versions, but more likely they will just send your well meant messages to device null.

  53. Flawless Victory! by Grindalf · · Score: 1

    Please note: If you don't let the CD autorun, hunt down to the directory with the installer of the actual game, this game still runs perfectly on any NVIDIA / Intel PC. Enjoy!

    --
    The purpose of existence is to make money.
  54. 1998 is old? by RockDoctor · · Score: 1
    Oh well, I guess the Elite clone (oolite, www.oolite.org or something like that ; it's blocked here because it appears on some blacklist as a games site) that I use to waste my time between finishing work and going to sleep must be positivley fossilized then.

    And ... so?

    --
    Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"