Mail Bag

Date: Mon, 12 Jan 1998 090904 -0500
From: Dalias
Subject: unbalance in quake 2? yeah right...

I would like to address Michael Buttrey's recent comments on ambushing, cheating, and game design in general.

In his entry in the mailbag, he pretty much says whichever player spots the other first wins. I can't tell you how wrong that is. Perhaps when players are new to the game and unexperienced in 3D gaming that is the case, but unless I just spawned next to a well armed player, I find it very rare to be killed on my opponent's first shot.

I assume (from what most people I see playing seem to think) that the weapon Michael is *most* concerned about in terms of ambushing being supposedly too powerful is the railgun. I see people camped in dark corners and similarly hidden places all the time, and it's lame. No, it's not lame because they kill me (which they rarely do); it's lame that they think they have to camp to get any frags.

But back to the point. The reason ambushing is not nearly so powerful in Quake 2 as Michael claims, the reaon that ambushing is nowhere NEAR what it was in classic Quake, is the absense of the all-powerful rocket. It's *OK* for a weapon to get lots of damage if its hard to hit with and has a high reload time. It's ok for a weapon to get splash damage if it doesn't hurt its target too much. Each weapon has its advantages and disadvantages, making it skill with the weapon and skill in 3D gaming in general that results in victory.

"id software designed Quake 2 for short and uneven battles..."

Here is what I understand least about Michael's rant. Almost all of my battles are long, and involve running around the map, finding the best ground for the current situation (i.e. getting up high to use a rocket launcher, or to avoid the railgun), and fighting it out. I may be shot (or rather shot at) first, but usually a recovery and victory is still very possible, especially considering how much health and armor is present in Quake II. Sure, there is the occasional frag just after respawn, but I find that even the blaster is enough to take out many players with railguns.

Anyway, on to cheating and game design...

"There is one and only one workable methodology to prevent cheating in network games. "

Michael goes on to describe how to make a strategy game. After all, isn't that what you have when you just tell your player or units or whatever where to move and what to shoot, and they do all the work?

Yes, cheating is a problem in network games. But, IMHO, if all you can do on the way of cheating is adjust your aim (which can be detected and kicked off the server by custom game code) or make your opponents show up better, I certainly see no reason to eliminate the action game genre.

I'm sorry, but Quake II would be no fun if it had stoogebot built into the game. Making everyone cheat is no way to eliminate cheating.

"The interface between the human and the network model must accomplish all tasks that can be done better by a computer."

Then we must have no action games. Go play C&C or something if you want a game like that. I'll stick with Quake II though.

In conclusion, what it really comes down to is that you must be able to *deal with* lameness and deal with cheating. Sure, it's not pretty, but I don't know any really good players who can't beat any lamer using a hacked model cheat or camping with 200 ammo for the bfg. It's being good at the game - having skill - that's gonna make you win, not having the "strategic" or reflex advantage from camping or cheating.

So, may the best man or woman win!

Dalias

Previous Mailbag