How I would create a game to troll 90% of FPS players

joe-h2o

The name's Bond... Hydrogen Bond
Oct 23, 2011
230
0
0
Chemical Alia said:
Make it so you can't invert the Y-axis. That would make my head explode. And my hands.
When the Chief gets inverted in the training level of Halo I exclaimed "Argh! my brain! Switch it back! The other way!"

Edit: I believe that the OP's post accurately describes old school FPS games, from UT to Quake III, or even Counterstrike.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Imat said:
And camping should never be a legitimate strategy. Using the mechanics of the game, something which is difficult to work around, in order to win is downright obnoxious.
You know, you never see chess players saying "Queen's Indian is OP, u n00b!" Possibly because their multiplayer game of choice is actually balanced.

TK421 said:
The only problem with this one is that there is no way to make it work. If you try what treyarch did with black ops, then no one can effectively snipe, even legitimately. You're going to have to come up with something new that won't nerf the hell out of sniper rifles.
You can just take out auto-aim for snipers. Then "quickscoping" stops becoming an exploit, and starts being an actual show of skill.
 

Ninjafire72

New member
Feb 27, 2011
158
0
0
Imat said:
camping should never be a legitimate strategy. Using the mechanics of the game, something which is difficult to work around, in order to win is downright obnoxious. And you saying it should be legitimate only goes to show that you don't like losing in FPS games and are willing to pull the cheapest of "non-cheating" strategies in order to win.
I cannot for the love of me figure out why camping is considered to be such a 'cheap' strategy. Why must every player in every FPS run'n'gun in order for them to be respectable? What's wrong with hiding around the corner, waiting for someone to ambush? What's wrong with holding position and watching a single entry point?

Camping is a legitimate strategy that only gets hated because people are too dumb to try something other than 'run around the map guns blazing'. In no way does it make the camper cheap for deciding "hey, you know what? I'm going to try and be creative with my playstyle!"
 

repeating integers

New member
Mar 17, 2010
3,315
0
0
Ninjafire72 said:
Imat said:
camping should never be a legitimate strategy. Using the mechanics of the game, something which is difficult to work around, in order to win is downright obnoxious. And you saying it should be legitimate only goes to show that you don't like losing in FPS games and are willing to pull the cheapest of "non-cheating" strategies in order to win.
I cannot for the love of me figure out why camping is considered to be such a 'cheap' strategy. Why must every player in every FPS run'n'gun in order for them to be respectable? What's wrong with hiding around the corner, waiting for someone to ambush? What's wrong with holding position and watching a single entry point?

Camping is a legitimate strategy that only gets hated because people are too dumb to try something other than 'run around the map guns blazing'. In no way does it make the camper cheap for deciding "hey, you know what? I'm going to try and be creative with my playstyle!"
I only consider it "camping" when there's no actual counter for it in that situation (like that Reach example earlier) - otherwise it's just holding a position, which is taking just as much a risk as all other strategies really.
 

Imat

New member
Feb 21, 2009
519
0
0
Ninjafire72 said:
Imat said:
camping should never be a legitimate strategy. Using the mechanics of the game, something which is difficult to work around, in order to win is downright obnoxious. And you saying it should be legitimate only goes to show that you don't like losing in FPS games and are willing to pull the cheapest of "non-cheating" strategies in order to win.
I cannot for the love of me figure out why camping is considered to be such a 'cheap' strategy. Why must every player in every FPS run'n'gun in order for them to be respectable? What's wrong with hiding around the corner, waiting for someone to ambush? What's wrong with holding position and watching a single entry point?

Camping is a legitimate strategy that only gets hated because people are too dumb to try something other than 'run around the map guns blazing'. In no way does it make the camper cheap for deciding "hey, you know what? I'm going to try and be creative with my playstyle!"
That's not the kind of camping I was talking about. I was speaking of spawn camping. If you can successfully camp a strategic point, then more power to you. But spawn camping is just the lowest of the low as far as strategies go. I suppose I never refer to the camping of which you speak as "camping," which is where the confusion comes from. I call it intelligence, or holding a position. Doesn't exploit the game's mechanics, therefore I'm good with it. Do it myself often enough.
 

Imat

New member
Feb 21, 2009
519
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
Imat said:
And camping should never be a legitimate strategy. Using the mechanics of the game, something which is difficult to work around, in order to win is downright obnoxious.
You know, you never see chess players saying "Queen's Indian is OP, u n00b!" Possibly because their multiplayer game of choice is actually balanced.

TK421 said:
The only problem with this one is that there is no way to make it work. If you try what treyarch did with black ops, then no one can effectively snipe, even legitimately. You're going to have to come up with something new that won't nerf the hell out of sniper rifles.
You can just take out auto-aim for snipers. Then "quickscoping" stops becoming an exploit, and starts being an actual show of skill.
I sometimes wish I was good at chess... But then I'd be rendered obsolete by the very profession I'm currently in (That of Software Development. The Chess AI is nigh unbeatable nowadays).
 

Mr Companion

New member
Jul 27, 2009
1,534
0
0
RagTagBand said:
You understand that "Slightly annoy a small portion of people" isn't trolling, right?
Indirectly at that, and they might not even notice it. Much more efficient method of trolling that kind of person was Bulletstorm's 'Duty Calls' trailer game made even more grievous by the fact it was pretty hypocritical (I loved Bulletstorm but was the cover, bloody screen and clunky movement really necessary?)
 

Ninjafire72

New member
Feb 27, 2011
158
0
0
Imat said:
That's not the kind of camping I was talking about. I was speaking of spawn camping. If you can successfully camp a strategic point, then more power to you. But spawn camping is just the lowest of the low as far as strategies go. I suppose I never refer to the camping of which you speak as "camping," which is where the confusion comes from. I call it intelligence, or holding a position. Doesn't exploit the game's mechanics, therefore I'm good with it. Do it myself often enough.
That does make sense actually, it really does get annoying and can easily ruin a game. Eg. I once watched a Youtube vid in Modern Warfare 2 where a player was able to get 300 kills by spawn-camping with a helicopter gunship. But honestly in those cases I blame the terrible game design more than the players, because as asshole-ish as it is all they are doing is exploiting the game's faults.
 

I.N.producer

New member
May 26, 2011
170
0
0
Make a shooter with multiple endings. All the endings are bad except for the pacifist run ending.

Fewer than a certain number of shots fired, not kills, will get you the good ending. Just to make it better, make the enemies into complete bastards so players can't resist killing them. Seriously bad, like they make Nazis look like the Red Cross.

Plus, the enemy force reacts to your violence appropriately, sending exponentially more force at you when you play more violently. If you kill or wound enemies, they start sending more and better troops. If you show that you are a big threat, they scale up the attack to the point where you have no option but to run and hide because fighting will get you killed easily.

To lower the difficulty, you would have to fake your death, but you can only do that a couple of times.

I started typing this as a way to troll gamers, but I kept thinking about the idea until it was something I would definitely preorder. The main character would probably be some kind of spy so a non-lethal route would be viable, and you could MacGyver up some weapons for unconventional warfare.

Tl,Dr: The idea started as a counter-intuitive fps and turned into something that would be awesome.(Partly inspired by Burn Notice and Deus Ex: HR)You're a spy, enemies are complete monsters, fighting boosts the difficulty, faking your death lowers it, only pacifist runs get the good ending, emphasis on makeshift weapons and unconventional tactics when you have to fight/escape.
 

zehydra

New member
Oct 25, 2009
5,033
0
0
So, Goldeneye.

Lol I basically like all of those ideas except the assault rifles one and iron sights. Iron sights are actually a core game mechanic for several fps games. It doesn't have to be in there, but it definitely DOES have it's own merit.
 

Bravo 21

New member
May 11, 2010
745
0
0
With the exception of #1, I think you've described Red Orchestra. It has automatic weapons, but they are usually nicely balanced, except in very close range. Camping is also just a fact of life.
 

flames09

New member
Nov 26, 2011
108
0
0
MammothBlade said:
I play some FPS games myself occasionally, but I have something of a hate on for the way the FPS genre has gone today.

#1. No iron sights. They take a fair bit of fun out of the game, in my view. I always did prefer hip fire. Scopes are an exception, of course.
...... [removed for rooms sake]
#10. No auto-regenerating health. Just medkits.

And I'm not talking about TF2. It isn't class based, it doesn't have comicbook graphics, and the maps are larger. The weapons would be altogether different.

Wow, I must be incredibly bitter.
Hey.... this is crazy but here is EVER SINGLE BATTLEFIELD BEFORE 3, have fun baby!

seriously though, they had a huge variety of maps vehicles and weapons! The modding community made it even better with bringing back BATTLESHIPS and submarines :D

The competition with call of duty made be disown the franchise, its BFBC3 not BF# those scumbuckets EA
 

.No.

New member
Dec 29, 2010
472
0
0
TestECull said:
The game is objectively awful
2: put a dying franchise out of our misery.
...Wat.
Call of Duty is objectively a video game. That's it.
Yeah, it's dying pretty fast though, as evidenced by it's most recent installment grossing about $775 million in five days.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
MammothBlade said:
I play some FPS games myself occasionally, but I have something of a hate on for the way the FPS genre has gone today.

#1. No iron sights. They take a fair bit of fun out of the game, in my view. I always did prefer hip fire. Scopes are an exception, of course.
#2. No auto-aim. It encourages laziness and makes it easy for people to get in annoying successive shots through their stupid iron sights.
#3. No automatic assault rifles. They remove a great deal of strategy from the game, because they are the jack of all kills and can hit anything on most maps. I think it would be better to have only submachine guns and light machine guns. Assault rifles should be semi-auto only. That way, it's more of a shooting game, you have to think about your shots.
#4. More than 2 "primary" weapons slots. This allows for versatility in combat.
#5. No killstreaks or perks.
#6. As many obscure, antique, or imaginary weapons as possible. No AK-47s or M4s, even semi auto versions. The same goes for Desert Eagles. Or perhaps they could be harshly nerfed so that anyone who uses them is in for an unpleasant surprise.
#7. No knife button, it's a secondary weapon which you have to select first. There is a wide selection of melee weapons.
#8. No quickscoping.
#9. Camping is a legitimate strategy.
#10. No auto-regenerating health. Just medkits.

And I'm not talking about TF2. It isn't class based, it doesn't have comicbook graphics, and the maps are larger. The weapons would be altogether different.

Wow, I must be incredibly bitter.
Honestly, most of what your saying applies to Counter-Strike.

My suggestion? Stay away from Call of Duty and all of it's uninspired clones/copy-cats and sign up for either the Counter-Strike: Global Offensive beta or the Tribes: Ascend beta.

You'll be a MUCH happier person. I promise.

'Course, there's always games like Halo, Team Fortress 2, Quake, Doom, or Unreal Tournament. Those fit most of your design choices too.
 

Vigormortis

New member
Nov 21, 2007
4,531
0
0
Ninjafire72 said:
Imat said:
camping should never be a legitimate strategy. Using the mechanics of the game, something which is difficult to work around, in order to win is downright obnoxious. And you saying it should be legitimate only goes to show that you don't like losing in FPS games and are willing to pull the cheapest of "non-cheating" strategies in order to win.
I cannot for the love of me figure out why camping is considered to be such a 'cheap' strategy. Why must every player in every FPS run'n'gun in order for them to be respectable? What's wrong with hiding around the corner, waiting for someone to ambush? What's wrong with holding position and watching a single entry point?

Camping is a legitimate strategy that only gets hated because people are too dumb to try something other than 'run around the map guns blazing'. In no way does it make the camper cheap for deciding "hey, you know what? I'm going to try and be creative with my playstyle!"
Hell, camping is a core mechanic of some games.

Take Counter-Strike. In pretty much every hostage map, one of the best strategies for the Terrorist side is to camp. It's the basis of the mode.

Even in destruction maps, where the Terrorists have to plant the bomb, the game often turns into a camp-fest with the Ts guarding a bomb (once planted) or the CTs guarding the bomb sites to stop the Ts.

So I'm like you. I've never understood the utter hatred for "camping". If a player is too gung-ho or too stupid to figure out a way to counter-act someone camping then they, frankly, deserve to be "owned" over and over.
 

banksy122

New member
Nov 12, 2009
155
0
0
I get the hate for Iron sights in games like CoD, CSS, TF2 etc, but games with ARMA and battlefield(Not CQ >.<) Iron sights are essential because of the slower pace and larger maps and distance between players. Also pistols in Battlefield are used for Close quarters combat, in which case you don't need to use the Iron sights on them.
 

Corporal Yakob

New member
Nov 28, 2009
634
0
0
Evilpigeon said:
Corporal Yakob said:
Surely the best way to troll FPS players would be to make COD: Concientious Objector edition?
Best idea in thread, multiplayer involves 64 players walking round 1916 London getting abuse hurled at you by female NPCs

Press X to reluctantly accept the white feather!