Shotguns, Snipers, Rocketeers, Camping, and Cheating - Page 4

SS.SGW-Siggi · 01-04-2002, 07:24 AM

Nope. Stalingrad is a pokey little map for sure, but it doesn't enable the players to run around like headless spasticated rabbkens. Sorry...a rabbken is a cross between a rabbit and a chicken. I have seen a few twats in MoH trying to import the Quake bunny-hop into MoH but fortunately it doesn't work very well.

Quake ain't a game, it's a sick travesty intended for retard junior-school drop-outs. I never would have had a problem with it except it sucked just about every PC game resource dryer than a desert. Magazines...quak quak quak. Online servers, nothing but quak. It was like a fuckin' plague. And for what?! A 'game' in which the players run around in garish uniforms at stupid speeds, jumping up and down as they go like spastic rabbits on coke, firing ridiculous weapons that even Flash Gordon would have been embarrassed to be seen with. A totally shite 'game' that only losers wanted to be any 'good' at. "Duh, I can't think, I can't plan, I have no brain to speak of...what game is there for me? Ah...Quake. All I have to do is react to stimuli like a chicken being zapped with a cattle-prod, and if I'm quick enough I'll win. Yay!"

Ahem. I guess I don't like quak much then.

Well, if I'm wrong I must be pretty hot shit at MoH. I don't die much, except when I get bored and steam in with the shotgun and take out three or four of the enemy before dying in a hail of bullets.

------------------

Saintholgi · 01-04-2002, 07:24 AM

ok.. shotgun is pretty cheap. But, in big areas ,its easy to kill a shotgun user.. the rocket shit is hard enough , but if the guy miss then its a problem for him to stay alive.. the sniper is good .. but not in close war.. so maybe , and i say maybe its easy scoring with it but you wont get long with just those weapons..

------------------

Ydiss · 01-04-2002, 07:27 AM

I totally agree with Hannover.

I've already been called down on another forum for saying I like to use the shotgun primarilly in most games, so I started by using it in MoH.

Apparently, it requires no skill to use and is only used by players who can't be bothered to learn how to aim.

I've been told that it's as simple as 'Target and shooot to kill'.

Funny, I thought that was how all guns worked, but then I suppose I must be wrong.

As Hannover pointed out, the shotgun is virtually useless at mid-long range. You have to expend all 5 shells in most cases, even if you hit with each one, to kill someone who isn't within 10 yards of you. But at close range they are devastating.

Which is how it should be.

I did just as Hannover did. I decided to quieten the moaners and complainers by trying out the SMG.

I found it much easier to use, and could get kills from a much longer range.

I tried the Axis Mauser 98k. A lot harder to use, but with practice I know I could be just as effective with it as I am with the shotgun, I simply have to keep some distance between me and the enemy. Nothing more satisfying that getting a 100+ yard headshot with one though.

I too don't mind players who use the rpg, but I do get annoyed at their lack of judgment (or lack of self-preservation) when they fire one of at point-blank range.

Whatever weapon anyone uses it all comes down to that person's skill. Skill meaning their reflexes, their ability to keep calm under fire, their ability to use the scenery and to out-think the opposition.

Siggi, I completely disagree with your claim that no-one can excell at any online shooter.

Medal of honor, and quake, and Half-life and all the others all require a mixture of various skills.

I agree that some of those skills are capped, if you like, by the player's computer and connection.

But assuming a person has a nice set-up and decent ping (sub 80, for instance) they can excell in themselves as far as they like.

I know a few of the best (and I also know THE best) european Half-life (DM, not TFC or CS) players.

You only have to watch them play a game of Half-life to see that they certainly aren't 'Average' and that they certainly don't just use reflexes to play so well.

Chinx is probably the best European player there is, and you just have to watch him to realise that he out-thinks opponents all the time to the point where they don't even see him before they are dead, or he simply predicts where they will be and fires without seeing them before-hand.

This man doesn't cheat, either. He, along with the rest of his clan [CWA] has found out and shamed many cheaters in his time.

I'm sorry, but anyone who claims that you can't be skillful at anything in this world is just jealous that they themselves don't excell.

The players that stand out are the ones that take a particular gun and use it like no other does.

Let's take the sniper rifle for example. If I were to ask you how you use it, you'd probably reply somethng along the lines of:

Get into a well covered position, get low and kill at range.

Well that's what most players who use it do. It works fine until the enemy work out where you are then either rush you, or sneak up carefully, with assault weapons or grenades and flush you out.

Then the 'average' player, as you like to put it, would be foobard.

Now take one of my mates, Rigz. He is what I would call an excellent player at half-life. He too plays in [CWA] and is certainly not an average player.

We both started out playing MoH at the end of December and, after trying out a couple of the weapons on offer, he decided to 'learn' the sniper rifle.

He's aware that staying still with the sniper rifle will only get you maybe one or two kills before you die.

So he doesn't.

Watch him play one day. He uses the sniper rifle like a shotgun and is a very clever player. He uses his ears very well and out-smarts players a lot.

Sure, sometimes he gets caught by someone, but then we all do.

But he decided to not just get good at the sniper, but to be the best there is out there with it.

At the moment, I've yet to see anyone better.

Oh, and he's already been accused of cheating a few times.

Cheating is more paranoia than reality. If someone beats you all the time they must be cheating because no one can be better than you by any large degree?

That's rubbish.

I know for a fact that he doesn't cheat. He sees cheating claims fired at him as a compliment, as he knows he doesn't cheat.

I don't deny there are cheats out there, I've seen an MPEG demo of one being used in Counter-Strike. It was horrific stuff to watch.

Having seen one in action though it makes it much easier to discern those who do use cheats and those who are simply better than me.

I always give players the benefit of the doubt, because if you are wrong how much of a loser must you look?

No matter how good you think you are at anything in this world, there will always be someone better than you.

Unless you strive to be that person yourself.

I don't because I can't commit the kind of time and practice required to become that person.

But I am happy just playing my game and improving myself. I get better with every second that I play, and I would disagree with anyone who says differently.

If someone beats you regularly it is most likely because they are better than you.

Some people have a hard time admitting that.

[This message has been edited by Ydiss (edited January 04, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by Ydiss (edited January 04, 2002).]

3/504th-Cpt.Knight · 01-04-2002, 07:41 AM

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SS.SGW-Siggi:

"Duh, I can't think, I can't plan, I have no brain to speak of...what game is there for me? Ah...Quake. All I have to do is react to stimuli like a chicken being zapped with a cattle-prod, and if I'm quick enough I'll win. Yay!"
<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL

I agree Siggi. I dont like quake either. Dont forget UT.

UnimaginativeQuakeClone Tournament

------------------
3rd Battalion
504th Parachute Infantry Regiment
82nd Airborne Division
"The Blue Devils"

SS.SGW-Siggi · 01-04-2002, 07:49 AM

A real sniper, if he's any good, will move after one shot.
A real sniper operates in an environment that is unfamiliar to his enemy...usually they are entering the 'neighbourhood' for the first time.
A real sniper has to contend with drop and windage.
A real sniper gets to camo-up with a multitude of materials.
A real sniper operates in a variety of light conditions.

I could go on.

In MoH, to make this game the example, none of the above apply. Once everyone has played a map for a couple of days it's as familiar as the back of one's hand. Light condition is constant. There is no variable camo. The balistics are crude...bullets function like a laser beam. It is not possible to move unseen...a monitor reveals all and every movement, unlike a real environment in which it IS possible to move unseen even when being looked at directly.

Again, I could go on.

I know a lot of you take great pride in being 'good' at these kinds of games, and you probably don't want somebody coming in here telling you that they are nothing more than a loose fantasy. However, somebody else started this (interesting) debate and I'm onboard.
I agree with you on one thing...those who are able to predict the movements of other players have an edge. But come on, who can't do THAT after learning a map??? The bloody things are so limited you would have to be retarded not to be able to predict where an opponent would generally choose to go.

Take a top real-world sniper and put him in MoH...he would die just as often as the twelve year old kid who plays it after school. You simply cannot be 'good' in this kind of game. It offers too little in the way of variables. Once you've learned all the variables, that's it...game 'mastered'.

Those who fancy themselves as 'Top Guns' will refuse to accept these facts...they prefer to live with the fantasy that this kind of game simulates real life and they would be hot potatoes on a real battle-field. Those who know better enjoy it for the light-weight fun it is, but without the cheats please.

------------------

Ydiss · 01-04-2002, 07:58 AM

Oh, and I don't like Quake at all either. It's far too spammy for my liking.

That doesn't mean that the players who do like it don't have any skill.

The guy who won the US championships didn't get there by simply having fast reflexes and a mentality of a narcotic poultry confection, as you like to put it.

I watched the demo of the final in which he won and half of the time he was predicting where his opponent was and out-witted him at pretty much every step.

Whatever game you play they all require skills to be the best.

The only game you could truly say doesn't require any skill or brains would be one set in an open room with no walls or objects in which two players stand in front of eachother shooting the same guns until one person died.

Add a wall to dodge around and instanly this pseudo game would require at least reflexes and awareness.

Whether you are running about Stalingrad blindly blasting players with a shotgun all day, or Tau-cannon wall/jumping/grenade/rpg spamming in Half-life, or flying through the air mindlessly in Q3 rail-gunning like-minded people it all takes skill.

You should stick to the games you enjoy. That's the most important thing here and, sadly, it seems you have forgotten that.

If you enjoy a game, play it. If you don't, don't.

If someone beats you all the time and you don't enjoy it, or can't be bothered to try to learn from it, go play elsewhere.

The person who rapes you continuously with 25 ping and the shotgun has just as much right to be there as you do.

SS.SGW-Siggi · 01-04-2002, 08:13 AM

But I do enjoy this game. It's just that I don't kid myself I'm skillful when I do well at it. I either have a good conn compared to others' lag or some other real-world variable is in the mix.

Ok, let's take a real-world example to prove my point.

What makes one athelete the champion, and the other the loser?
Out of an almost infinite number of variables let's take the obvious...

Muscle quality.
Bone strength.
Stamina.
Mental condition.
Blood supply (circulation).
Tendons and ligaments.

Etc.

All or any of these variables are what make the difference between winning or losing on an athletics race track.

Now put them into our game, MoH...oh dear, they don't go. Our soldiers have one run speed, never get winded, don't have variable qualities of circulation, stamina, ligaments etc etc etc.
So how can one player 'improve' his movement performance? How can any one player become superior in that particular respect? He can't. He learns to move AS BEST AS THE CODE ALLOWS and then tops-out.
Once every other player has done that (and any child could) all players are equal in that respect.

Now apply that rule to every other component of the game...shooting, grenade throwing, jumping over walls, sneaking, looking around corners...etc etc etc.

How can any one player get an edge? By buying a new mouse (my track-ball isn't ideal for MoH so I could probably improve by changing it), by getting a good broadband connection...by tinkering with his hardware in general. Or by cheating.

But being 'good'? Good at manipulating the code? Why is it that kids are as good as adults at these kinds of games? Exactly...the code levels everyone. The code is so crude, in terms of simulating real life, THAT EVEN A KID CAN MASTER IT AND COMPETE WITH AN ADULT. That cannot be said about most things in the REAL world.

These games DO NOT REQUIRE SKILL, anymore than a chimp requires skill to be able to peel a banana. They require no more skill than that required by a typist. These games consist of repetitive tasks, standard types of ingrained reflexes and a general ability to predict the actions of one's opponent. Hey, just think what YOU would do and apply it to the other guy...it ain't like the REAL WORLD where you have plenty of choices.

I rest my case.

------------------

[This message has been edited by SS.SGW-Siggi (edited January 04, 2002).]

Hotspur · 01-04-2002, 08:14 AM

Siggi says (finally): >I don't think I can any longer maintain that everyone reaches equality in this game, unless there simply hasn't been enough time yet<

This is a grudging admission that he was wrong. Thank you, Siggi!

Now looking at the rest of the post, and in fact the balance of Siggi's posts, this is what we find, Siggi saying things such as: >I guess I have to conclude that either the SS.SGW are MoH gods or all our opponents to date are just totally crap. Yes, it got so easy that I took to running down the road with a pistol in one hand and my dick in the other<

His posts are full of such comments, and these comments boil down to this: "I AM A STUD AT MOH!!"

I have no problem with this. I have no reason to doubt it. But Siggi, if the real reason for this thread is to boast, then please do so with out dissembling!

Hannover · 01-04-2002, 08:29 AM

Siggi,

It is precisely the *lack* of all your listed variables that allow someone to master the game.

Respectfully,
Hannover

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SS.SGW-Siggi:
A real sniper, if he's any good, will move after one shot.
A real sniper operates in an environment that is unfamiliar to his enemy...usually they are entering the 'neighbourhood' for the first time.
A real sniper has to contend with drop and windage.
A real sniper gets to camo-up with a multitude of materials.
A real sniper operates in a variety of light conditions.

I could go on.

In MoH, to make this game the example, none of the above apply. Once everyone has played a map for a couple of days it's as familiar as the back of one's hand. Light condition is constant. There is no variable camo. The balistics are crude...bullets function like a laser beam. It is not possible to move unseen...a monitor reveals all and every movement, unlike a real environment in which it IS possible to move unseen even when being looked at directly.

Again, I could go on.

I know a lot of you take great pride in being 'good' at these kinds of games, and you probably don't want somebody coming in here telling you that they are nothing more than a loose fantasy. However, somebody else started this (interesting) debate and I'm onboard.
I agree with you on one thing...those who are able to predict the movements of other players have an edge. But come on, who can't do THAT after learning a map??? The bloody things are so limited you would have to be retarded not to be able to predict where an opponent would generally choose to go.

Take a top real-world sniper and put him in MoH...he would die just as often as the twelve year old kid who plays it after school. You simply cannot be 'good' in this kind of game. It offers too little in the way of variables. Once you've learned all the variables, that's it...game 'mastered'.

Those who fancy themselves as 'Top Guns' will refuse to accept these facts...they prefer to live with the fantasy that this kind of game simulates real life and they would be hot potatoes on a real battle-field. Those who know better enjoy it for the light-weight fun it is, but without the cheats please.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Ydiss · 01-04-2002, 08:31 AM

So, Siggi, are you telling me you're the best out there?

Or do others beat you?

Or are you claiming that because MoH doesn't exactly resemble real-life that it requires no skill at all beyond learning a map to play?

Firstly, MoH is a game. I'm glad I got the opportunity to let that come to your attention.

My question was relating to a game, not to what a real sniper would do.

If you want to talk about real-life battle tactics I suggest you go post on a forum that relates to them, not on one about a game.

Secondly, if all you think it takes to excell in any game is to learn the map then I pity you.

You are either the best player in the world or an extremely average one. I don't know for sure, 'cos I've never seen you play.

But no game will ever, ever, ever reflect real-life exactly. Your argument is that Medal of Honor requires no skill because basically it isn't the real thing.

You're right, a real-life expert sniper who has never played MOH would be crap at it to begin with.

But then again that goes for anyone.

It also goes for an expert MoH player who was given a real gun and told to kill with it.

They'd die pretty fast.

Your argument is redundant, it has nothing to do with the game at all.

So, you claim that you have mastered everything there is to know about the game?

If you say yes, then well done. You must be a very good player.

If the answer is no, then what are you complaining about? There's lot to learn about any game, and always more than you first thought.

Any experienced player would laugh at your claims that no game takes skill because it isn't real.

Simply put, you are saying that everyone is as good as eachother because all games are limited in what you can learn.

Come play on a server with me someday and we'll put that to the test shall we?

According to you we'd always get the same score, unless of course I cheat.

It's a sad and redundant excuse to cover up the fact that others are better at a game (yes, it is a game, remember?) than you are.

They are either as good as you, or they cheat.

That's the most retarded crap I've heard in a long time.

Put it this way. Rigz just pointed out to me that you can take the basics of most games and relate it to Chess.

Chess is all about decision making, and thinking ahead.

Anyone who claims Chess requires no skill to play is an idiot (and probably can't play it themselves).

Any game that requires decision making requires a skill.

Chess certainly is restricted in it's parameters, as is any game. In fact, it is more restricted than Medal of Honor, as it only involves an 8x8 playing area and each piece can only do one thing.

There is only so many moves you can do per position of any game. The best players see those moves long before their opponent does.

Medal of Honor, as with any real-time game, has the same ideas but with an added dimension and the fact that you need hand-eye coordination and reflexes.

Plus, just think about how many permutations and individual situations there are in a game like MoH.

And it's all real-time!

The only way Chess becomes anything resembling a game of noughts and crosses is when you program a computer to play it for you.

Gary Kasparov lost 2-1 to the most advanced computer to play Chess in the history of the game.

That tells you that there are still possibilities of improvement (although he is a genius and without a doubt the best at the game in the world).

Are you trying to tell me that you are as good as him at Chess? Oh sorry, he must use a whall-hack or something.

I'm sorry but your argument is weak.

SS.SGW-Siggi · 01-04-2002, 08:32 AM

It is precisely the *lack* of all my listed variables that allows EVERYONE to master the game.

------------------

Ydiss · 01-04-2002, 08:32 AM

SIggi, you really need to come play us on a public server.

Do you use All Seeing Eye to browse for servers? The ones Rigz and I usually play in are Barry's World and Gamesdomain public Objective servers.

They are uk servers. There is also SHRIMPWARS and BOOMTOWN, which are european ones.

Drop in sometime or give us a time when we can meet you in a server of your choice for a friendly game.

Both Rigz and I seem to get the same success ratio as you claim (although I doubt that will remain so for too long), so it would be interesting to see how things go, if nothing else.

SS.SGW-Siggi · 01-04-2002, 08:40 AM

If I accept your arguments Ydiss I have to believe I'm a top player at this game, because if I'm not pissing about in it I get lots of kills and rarely die.

The guys who die are those who are bored of the same map and run around like nuts for the fun of it.

Everyone has mastered the code (odd exceptions excepted), everyone has learned the two MP maps, everyone is broadly equal.

I don't need to believe I'm a super-sniper, so I don't pretend this game requires skill. It's as simple as that. Those who insist these types of game require skill are those who are achieving little in the real world and need to compensate. I'm sorry if that hurts but don't shoot the messenger.

Oh, and I'd be more than happy to meet you online...a little needle always provides welcome frisson in an otherwise stagnating experience.

------------------

Hannover · 01-04-2002, 08:41 AM

We'll see, Siggs, because it hasn't happened yet. =)

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:<HR>Originally posted by SS.SGW-Siggi:
It is precisely the *lack* of all my listed variables that allows EVERYONE to master the game.

<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

[This message has been edited by Hannover (edited January 04, 2002).]

Ydiss · 01-04-2002, 08:49 AM

Yeh, you aren't listening.

By the way, any game allows everyone to master it completely. But I can tell you that no one ever does.

It hasn't happened yet.

What the hell are you going on about?

I am doing just fine in life at the moment, and I enjoy playing games in my spare time.

There is no direct correlation between being good at a game and having no social, or work-life.

Except in most cases those that do spend all their time playing games will be better than those who don't.

I know for a fact I haven't learnt everything about MoH already, but I would still be confident that I could beat you in a team-play or ffa situation.

Until i see other-wise I'll not believe you knwo everything about the game.

[This message has been edited by Ydiss (edited January 04, 2002).]