World Australia Europe Latin America Malaysia New Zealand United Kingdom United States Half Life Challenge-TV CPMA


Contribute .
#Challenge on ETG.
#Challenge on Quakenet.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]

-Respawn System
-Brief History
-Imbalance in Quake
-Increase the Balance?
-Reinvent the Spawn

Challenge Player Index
Link to Challenge World

Spawn System

Conclusion ? 17 comments
In order to make the game more balanced, and make it harder for the "player in control" to spawn-rape his/her opponent, id Software strengthened the respawned player and weakened the player in control. I've argued that, at the top level at least, that doesn't really work out too well.

On many occasions, but particularly where an opponent respawns in full view, the top players can use their aim and movement technique to take down the other player before they have had much of a chance to get back into the game. I've argued that giving the respawned player any more power or protection is not the right way to go. You may as well switch to dmm4 rules or start playing Rocket Arena.

If we want Quake competition to be taken more seriously, especially by an audience who are not hardcore players, then we need to address random factors and introduce just a bit more structure into how Quake 1on1 matches start and how they are played out. The idea of the two fixed spawns at the start (note, this only applies to the starting spawns) would provide a "fair start", at the very least in the sense that both players will know exactly what to expect spawning into the game. They can then spawn in with a gameplan ready to put into action - perhaps a race for the RA or some other approach.

Sure, there are a lot of mapping issues with all of this. Map design plays the crucial role here. Just how can you ensure that any one of two starting spawns doesn't give that player an undue advantage? Do you make each spawn the same distance from major items? Do you give one player YA and MH and the other player RA? It will surely take quite a bit of trial and error. A design goal such as this would certainly require mappers to invent "solutions" that met the requirements.

In terms of using spawns to ensure that the player "in control" doesn't have too easy a job of it during the game, I think mappers have to consider how top players can stretch the physics to get around a map. "Balanced" maps will only produce balanced games so long as one player cannot control both YAs (assuming they provide the balance, for example). If a mapper uses a combination of MH and YA to balance out the RA then the map must somehow make it very hard for the RA player to create a circuit where they can control RA, YA and MH. The consequence of not taking care over such things is that a map can become too easy to control. Couple that with a number of "free points" where your opponent spawns right in front of you, and the result is a very unbalanced game.

These are just my ideas, and I do not expect them to get implemented even in CPM without a lot of mappers and players agreeing that they are good ideas. I put them to you, the reader, so that they can hopefully be discussed. Maybe we'll see a map built that experiments with putting them into practice - then at least we'd get an idea if the theory translates well into practice. Until then, good luck with your spawns.

<-- PREVIOUS PAGE -- Back to CHWD -->

Read our Disclaimer. Quake, Quake II, Quake ]|[ and the stylized "Q" are trademarks of id Software
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners
? 2000 -