More of the same? [Archive] - Epic Games Forums

VoodooPriest

08-25-2006, 02:25 PM

Monster w/21 Faces

08-25-2006, 02:39 PM

Why do you think CS is still so popular?

Because it's free and you can run it on a wris****ch. NEXT!

Don't like ONS on Warfare? Then stick to DM. No one is forcing you to play with vehicles.

Epic have already stripped certain gametypes so that people don't ***** about the division of community within the game and so the core mechanics of the game can be perfected.

Your core DM gameplay cannot be improved, Quake 3 already provided players with the most perfect streamlined Deathmatch orientated gameplay you could possibly ask for and in order for Epic to actually provide customers with a product worth paying a wad of cash for they need to up the scale of the game, you see that's what FPSers are about now. Scale. They've already perfected small tight arena based combat and now that they've done that and have the system resources to go outside they have done. That ofcourse means vehicles.

This is not UT99, This is UT2007, the game has to grow otherwise it stagnates. You want UT? Then play UT. Don't like the quality of the graphics it pumps out? Deal with it. You make it sound as if the only thing that truely matters is the gameplay, well if that's the case then put your money where your mouth is. Don't buy it and stop talking about it. If theres one thing the Unreal community needs less of it's people who whine everytime Epic try and push the series forward.

Molgan

08-25-2006, 02:53 PM

If theres one thing the Unreal community needs less of it's people who whine everytime Epic try and push the series forward.
Quoted so people get a chance to read it again.

Oddside

08-25-2006, 03:02 PM

ONS is the worst gametype of any shooter ever also but not only because it favours the already winning team and its just pure boredom.Please name one FPS that favours the losing team. Rewarding the losing team would make for a rubbish game, can you imagine a race with a £10,000,000 prize for last place?? :eek:

You say that is true in UT2k4? Maybe so but in UT2k4 the AVRiL ist as boring as hell, works basically by itself and it puts the whole vehicular vs foot combat ad absurdum.The shock rifle is more effective against flying targets, the flak cannon is usually more effective against tanks (except for long range), sticky grenades work wonders etc... All the weapons work by themselves once you've pressed fire.

I find myself not wanting to use the lame vehicles but not wanting to use the lame AVRiL either.The last time I played ONS no one forced me to use the vehicles or the AVRiL.

You are complaining about nothing, DM will still be in the game, no one forces you to play ONS.

The5thviruz

08-25-2006, 03:02 PM

Originally Posted by Monster w/21 Faces
If theres one thing the Unreal community needs less of it's people who whine everytime Epic try and push the series forward.

And once more just for the hell of it.

>>Gunslinger<<

08-25-2006, 03:09 PM

VoodooPriest

08-25-2006, 03:11 PM

And once more just for the hell of it.

You can bash me people but you are wrong. I'm not one of the UT 4ever guys and I'm not against change.
I really liked the new movement options UT2kx provided, I liked the LG over the Sniper, I liked basically most of the innovations UT2kx (x != 7) offered. But vehicles didn't work out for me and apparently I'm not the only one. UT2k4 is dead and the old UT from 99 has roughly the same amount of players. You should think about why that is so.

Yes you can push someone forward but you can also push him so hard that he will fall.

And let me make this clear, If I decide to go for it I will give UT2k7 vehicular modes a shot. But when I look at the trailer (ut2k4 trailers also looked cool but the gameplay sucked afterwards) I can already see where this is going.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-25-2006, 03:12 PM

But then that can be said for any gameplay mode in any game. Camaraderie goes a hell of a long way to keeping you interested and involved in a game.

UT2k4 is dead and the old UT from 99 has roughly the same amount of players. You should think about why that is so.

You make it sound like UT2004 was at some point alive. The damage caused by UT2003 and the problems that followed on into UT2004 combined with the dillution through overly reaching gamemodes, scale and movement problems is what killed UT2004, not vehicles.

VoodooPriest

08-25-2006, 03:13 PM

Well, its already been said, but you are under no obligation, directly or implied, to play ONS at any time once you have procured UT2K7. Many of us enjoy playing it, particularly in a competitive team environment. But, that does not mean you have to.

If you were interested, I would say get involved with a team/clan that competes. That way you wouldn't have to worry about being on a pub and being bored. It can be a lot of fun and promotes strong teamwork and good communication.

actually I played ONS for a while on CB. It was all about who can get to which node/vehicle 1 second before the other team does. After that the faster team just played it home with the excess node/vehicles. Yeah really great fun.

Wowbagger

08-25-2006, 03:19 PM

I have to agree here, ONS didnt do it for me either (i wanted to like it) luckily we were enough in the clan to play some UT2004 CTF for over a year (i think, time flies) at CB.
Then it gradually slowed down and now its practically dead.

Im putting my hope to Epics statement about ingame clan support etc and the Unreal Warfare gametype.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-25-2006, 03:24 PM

Jesus Wowbagger don't you ever die?

sure

08-25-2006, 03:26 PM

Why do you think CS is still so popular?

Who cares about CS. Bunch of 8 year olds.

And don't judge a game on a trailer man.
Play demo first.

Phopojijo

08-25-2006, 03:32 PM

Also don't judge the game based on the on-disk content.

Of the top 5 player count (at this moment) UT99 servers, how many are official content? Last I checked, none.

The game can become so many other types of games for free -- all we need are people with ideas, and an unnatural amount of Redbull.

xi0s

08-25-2006, 03:39 PM

Wow Voodoo, can you become any more ignorant for the rest of us. UT2k4 isn't dead, CS is a different kind of game, ons is not forced for you to play it, you cant judge a book by its cover, etc etc.

When you can actually know what youre talking about rather than being a prejudice little 9 year old who thinks he knows what the next series of UT needs precisely to make it right because he can criticize a game for one thing or another, please indulge.

Otherwise, youre opinion is just as much as you describe the aVriL....lame

os][ris

08-25-2006, 03:45 PM

You can bash me people but you are wrong. I'm not one of the UT 4ever guys and I'm not against change.
I really liked the new movement options UT2kx provided, I liked the LG over the Sniper, I liked basically most of the innovations UT2kx (x != 7) offered. But vehicles didn't work out for me and apparently I'm not the only one. UT2k4 is dead and the old UT from 99 has roughly the same amount of players. You should think about why that is so.

Yes you can push someone forward but you can also push him so hard that he will fall.

And let me make this clear, If I decide to go for it I will give UT2k7 vehicular modes a shot. But when I look at the trailer (ut2k4 trailers also looked cool but the gameplay sucked afterwards) I can already see where this is going.

ifyou dont like vehicles then don't play ons.. i dont see why a thread has to be made about this.. This is the whole purpose of multiple game types.

Selerox

08-25-2006, 03:58 PM

Please name one FPS that favours the losing team. Rewarding the losing team would make for a rubbish game, can you imagine a race with a £10,000,000 prize for last place?? :eek:

I think he means that it actively helps the team that gets a break to the point where the entire game revolves around getting a great start and nothing much else.

Take CTF for example. No matter the skills of the teams, if tactics remain the same, the losing team has exactly the same chance of scoring at any point in the match, even if they're losing.

In ONS, if you start losing, the game ends up in a feed-back loop. If you lose a node, the match instantly puts your team at a huge disadvantage, therefore making it harder to retake the node. This effect gets magnified by the number of nodes.

In CTF (or BR, DDOM or TDM even) it's possible - if unlikely - to come back and win a match if you're losing badly. In ONS it's impossible without some form of divine intervention.

Gametypes have to be designed in such a way as to make a come-back possible. ONS seems to have been designed to deliberatly prevent the losing team from having a chance, because they more you lose, the easier it gets to lose even more.

It's the reason I don't play ONS.

Blackhearted

08-25-2006, 04:00 PM

If theres one thing the Unreal community needs less of it's people who whine everytime Epic try and push the series forward.
The thing is tho, ONS was a step backwards. Never before have i gone pubbing and been surrounded by such a large number of the most incompetent players youll ever find. I like teamates that have a clue, not ones who can barely aim with their mouse. And seeing how theyre adding an even bigger version of ONS its just going to get worse. I fail to see how this is pushing the game forward.

VoodooPriest

08-25-2006, 04:43 PM

Monster w/21 Faces

08-25-2006, 04:45 PM

The thing is tho, ONS was a step backwards. Never before have i gone pubbing and been surrounded by such a large number of the most incompetent players youll ever find. I like teamates that have a clue, not ones who can barely aim with their mouse. And seeing how theyre adding an even bigger version of ONS its just going to get worse. I fail to see how this is pushing the game forward.

Then you're an idiot.

Garcia y Vega

08-25-2006, 04:45 PM

You make it sound like UT2004 was at some point alive. The damage caused by UT2003 and the problems that followed on into UT2004 combined with the dillution through overly reaching gamemodes, scale and movement problems is what killed UT2004, not vehicles.

Agreed, if anything the inclusion of vehicles ADDED to the 2k* playerbase

SweetTooth

08-25-2006, 04:50 PM

actually I played ONS for a while on CB. It was all about who can get to which node/vehicle 1 second before the other team does. After that the faster team just played it home with the excess node/vehicles. Yeah really great fun.

What you are saying is exactly like DM/TDM, to some extent. You get to the shield 1 second before your enemy and you get said shield you tend to win the fight. but the excess vehicles is WAR. The side with the greater supplies and such tends to win. HOWEVER, it is 100% possibly to defeat greater odds with superior tactics. The is how geurilla warfare tends to work and how many revolutions started that way? PLENTY! so my advice to you: GET BETTER TACTICS!

jjensson

08-25-2006, 05:06 PM

I played and loved Unreal (I remember my first LAN discovering the shock combo and owning people), UT, UT2k3 and UT2k4. I played mostly CTF, iCTF and (T)DM. At some point I was very active in Clanbase and played several hours a day for 3 years.

.............

This is all going the wrong way. Is anyone feeling the same? I'm not saying the series must not evolve (Quake4 is boring because it has 0 innovations) but it must evolve in the right direction.

You are not alone! I hate ONS too. Another thing that got me mad is that they removed the DOM mode in the last incarnation(s). Instead, they delivered this boring boring new domination mode (don't even remember the new name).

But anyway, DM is still in and kicking. And for DOMINATION, well i discovered in FEAR Combat you can play a mode named CONTROL (same as UT DOM), and this is giant fun!

jj

jjensson

08-25-2006, 05:10 PM

I fail to see how this is pushing the game forward.

it's pushing the bank accounts of Epic...

PaintMonster

08-25-2006, 05:13 PM

UT2K4 died? Did I miss that bus or did it not stop by my house? I am on nightly playing TAM and vCTF with a great group of people. I'd say the two servers have a good mix of our clan members and other people.

Sounds like someone needs to surround themselves with a good tight nit gaming clan. Don't go find one that is all about being the the best of the best (or worst of the worst). Go find a group that loves the game (or at least the game type) as much as you. I loved ONS when it first came out. Then six months later I became addicted to vCTF. Then a year and a half later TAM had my attention. Lucky for me the clan has also gone in these directions.

Of course maybe people are mistaking the out of school slow down. Seems like the last couple of months the servers have been a bit slow. But here lately they have been filling up like mad. Also, just cause you don't play a game does not mean it's dead. I mean I don't play Guild Wars anymore and it's still alive and kicking. StarCraft is a perfect example of a game that people think is dead. Only problem is someone forgot to tell tons of people and Blizzard (who just released a new patch for the game last month).

Agree with the "the whiners need to leave" comments, but also think that you just need to find your nitch and enjoy it. Maybe CS is your thing. I will be playing UT until I go blind.

Come join us. We take all the fights to the bike racks!!
http://www.serverspy.net/bin/hmon/69.56.162.5:7777/13/image.png
http://www.serverspy.net/bin/hmon/205.138.195.33:7777/13/image.png

Molgan

08-25-2006, 05:14 PM

Yeah great lets start the new forum with a "I hate ONS" thread to really show that people havent grown a bit.. :|

Flak

08-25-2006, 05:15 PM

I will be playing UT until I go blind.

I found this worth repeating ;)

jjensson

08-25-2006, 05:27 PM

Yeah great lets start the new forum with a "I hate ONS" thread to really show that people havent grown a bit.. :|

It's not meant as a flame. Just a different opinion. It has to be said that not everybody likes vehicles. There are purists/oldschools0rs out there, playing mostly tourney, DM, TDM and CTF.

And slightly OT - besides the fact that UT2007 is looking gorgeous and i'm looking forward to play it, has anybody noticed the bad model animations?

Food for thought.
jj

Slaughter

08-25-2006, 05:29 PM

In ONS, if you start losing, the game ends up in a feed-back loop. If you lose a node, the match instantly puts your team at a huge disadvantage, therefore making it harder to retake the node. This effect gets magnified by the number of nodes.

Umm, that's the point of the game. That's why it is called an Onslaught.

Gametypes have to be designed in such a way as to make a come-back possible.

Where is this written? :confused:

But to illustrate that it is possible, consider this battle in ONS-Dawn at Cain's Lair (16v16): Tied 2-2 after four hard fought rounds, each round having gone into overtime. Our teams core cut down to 2 points early in round 5; their's untouched. The side-nodes adjacent to our core under constant attack.

I'll give you five guesses who won this battle...and the first four don't count.

A_Spec

08-25-2006, 05:29 PM

=

And slightly OT - besides the fact that UT2007 is looking gorgeous and i'm looking forward to play it, has anybody noticed the bad model animations?

Wanna make some new ones?

Wowbagger

08-25-2006, 05:38 PM

Jesus Wowbagger don't you ever die?
Monster w/21 Faces, You're a jerk, a complete kneebiter.

jjensson

08-25-2006, 05:39 PM

Wanna make some new ones?

Heh, i'm not trolling here. I wonder why Epic, with such a big team, isn't able to do more polish on the animations, maybe even motion capturing... The devs from id seem to do very good animations, they always look smoother and more real than Epics.

If anyone has an explanation, let's hear it. Maybe the animations are still in beta state?

jj

Flak

08-25-2006, 05:39 PM

OK guys, knock off the flames or I'm going to lock this one.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-25-2006, 05:41 PM

Monster w/21 Faces, You're a jerk, a complete kneebiter.

Aggh why would you say that to such a long term friend.

MonsOlympus

08-25-2006, 05:45 PM

Originally Posted by jjensson
Heh, i'm not trolling here. I wonder why Epic, with such a big team, isn't able to do more polish on the animations, maybe even motion capturing... The devs from id seem to do very good animations, they always look smoother and more real than Epics.

If anyone has an explanation, let's hear it. Maybe the animations are still in beta state?

Im pretty sure in the credits for uc2 there was a section for motion capture so I think you might be wrong there. I think you might have answered your own question as well, Im guessing stuff is still being polished up.

Also that clip of malcolm speaking in german and the ps3 clip the anims all looked top notch. I didnt notice any problems in any of the newer clips either :S

Wowbagger

08-25-2006, 05:46 PM

Bah! The Hitch hikers Guide To The Galaxy quotes are wasted on you guys :)

jjensson

08-25-2006, 05:49 PM

Im pretty sure in the credits for uc2 there was a section for motion capture so I think you might be wrong there. I think you might have answered your own question as well, Im guessing stuff is still being polished up.

Granted, i never played UC2, but the screenshots always looked better than UT2003/4 in my eye. Maybe UC2 was more polished, or the dev-team had different people in, i dunno...

Regarding Malcolm speaking in that trailer, yes, that was top notch, seemed like motion capture.

jj

m00neye

08-25-2006, 05:56 PM

i really tried hard to get into Ons but i never did, i stick to CTF :) and i must agree with the replays of selerox, you must have a game where it's slightly easier to get a comeback, ONS doesn't provide that, unfortunatly :(

Hope to meet you all in UT2007 ctf-scene :)

Trooper TK409

08-25-2006, 06:03 PM

I still play ONS UT2k4 online nearly everyday and I've seen & been part of lots of unbelieveable comebacks. Play hard, work hard for the team. It works in the game as well as in life.

Oh, and UT2K7 rocks - you haven't seen a 10th of it! Seriously. I'm a gamer first and an Epic employee second. This is crazy awesome.

jjensson

08-25-2006, 06:16 PM

Oh, and UT2K7 rocks - you haven't seen a 10th of it!

Hey Trooper, it sounds like you have played UT2007. Can you describe with a few words how the movement feels? UT2004 was a little bit too floaty, Q4 was clumsy like "too much gravity". Would you say UT2k7 is somewhere in the middle? That would be the ideal balance for me. Q3 was just right in that regard, UT99 i can't remember unfortunately...

cheers
jj

Sero

08-25-2006, 06:19 PM

Hmm, I personally don't like the vehicles, but I honestly don't get the point.. it's like when someone told me the reason he didn't switch to ut2k4 (from ut99) was that he didn't like the vehicles.. I mean.. I managed to play ut2k4 since it was released without bothering myself with ONS or vCTF or whatever.

For some reason people seem to get so offended by things they don't ever have to come near if they don't wish to..

Madridista

08-25-2006, 06:26 PM

Personally i really hate all the mods invloving vehicles.

I think its really low skilled comapred to the classic DM and CTF, its simple as that - fragging with weapons is much harder then with vehicles.

Still i know quite a few players ( and no, not newbies at all ) that likes the vehicle mods, mainly Assault which can be quite fun for sometimes when u play it with the right people, still fairly less skilled then the non-vehicles mods, but its fun to get a little break from the hard-work fragging involved in the non-vehicles mods.

So as long as the MAIN mod remains 1on1 ( atleast considering the WCG and ESWC picks ), I dont have any problem with vehicles mods in UT2K7, I respect the Assault-Lovers oppinion as they respect mine. but if EPIC gonna try and make UT2K7 the next tribes or smth it will be the biggest mistake ever.

1on1 ( DM/TDM/CTF for you guys :) ) ftw!

jjensson

08-25-2006, 06:27 PM

For some reason people seem to get so offended by things they don't ever have to come near if they don't wish to..

Look at it from this perspective: we would've got better DM and CTF maps if it wasn't for ONS and vCTF. Just because other games have certain features... But OK, that's the way it goes. You can see it everywhere. It's the "Oohh, shiny!"-syndrome, as some forumate described it a while ago.

jj

Wowbagger

08-25-2006, 06:31 PM

I dont think people get offended, more maybe worried that their beloved classic gametype will get a lessened treatment because all the work is concentrated on the vehicular gametypes.

Im a diehard CTF fan but have high hopes for UW.
Actually, if Epic get all the components in and working well i will probably enjoy all gametypes :)

Trooper TK409

08-25-2006, 06:35 PM

Yes I've played it quite a bit. Last fall I wrote a note to our developers saying how much I really liked the movement and grip of the tire vehicles (hellbender, scorpion, etc), since then they've improved them even more. To say nothing of the Walkers, Levi and flying vehicles. Like I said, the trailer shows such a small fraction of gameplay and what I like about UT is there's a game in it for all kinds of preferences, so if you don't like ONS, there are certainly lots of other exilarating options.

sure

08-25-2006, 06:40 PM

Like I said, the trailer shows such a small fraction of gameplay and what I like about UT is there's a game in it for all kinds of preferences, so if you don't like ONS, there are certainly lots of other exilarating options.

Here we go :goodone:

Wowbagger

08-25-2006, 06:42 PM

Sero

08-25-2006, 06:48 PM

Look at it from this perspective: we would've got better DM and CTF maps if it wasn't for ONS and vCTF. Just because other games have certain features... But OK, that's the way it goes. You can see it everywhere. It's the "Oohh, shiny!"-syndrome, as some forumate described it a while ago.

jj

I think that's rather questionable though. I think that without the vehicle gametypes the only change, if any, would be even more of the same type of maps. The stock maps pretty much seem like they were intended to end up like this, and I think the dodge-jump is more of a factor here than vehicles.

kapichu

08-25-2006, 08:08 PM

blah blah blah, just one thing: no more tanks, no more ships, no more "war of the worlds tripod's", no more überduper skins with 1 million polys, just bring us back the gameplay of UT CTF.

UT2003 / 04 splits the UT Community with his awful CTF. You can solve this now, with:

Uncapped Teleport with no trails
Decent / playable maps
Decent / playable skins
No "flying all over the map" movements (boost?), it's a FPS, not Flight Simulator xD
That's all, folks

:eek:

Flak

08-25-2006, 08:34 PM

Hey Trooper, it sounds like you have played UT2007. Can you describe with a few words how the movement feels?

Don't bother. You ask the developers how the game is and all you get is a bunch of adjectives, exclamation points and unfinished sentences.

Zoso Fan

08-25-2006, 08:37 PM

Dude, you dont like ONS? What the heck is your problem? ;) Just kiddin' If you dont like it, dont play it. Let the millions of us that cant get enough ONS play in peace though :)

AmericanWoman

08-25-2006, 08:42 PM

"Never Whine Before It's Time"
Hey, i like that.;)

The5thviruz

08-25-2006, 09:00 PM

Let the millions of us that cant get enough ONS play in peace though :)

Millions? lol.

Magwa

08-25-2006, 09:48 PM

Guys Hate is a very strong word,there are alot of things i dislike about 2k3 and 2k4 but i do not hate any of them...Ons,was always a race gametype to me if you were not first here or there then you were on your heels...I am a boring old Fart i love CTF Insta CTF LMS and i like VCTF so there will be alot of stuff in 2007 that does not appeal to me but hey if you can not find something in a game with so much then maybe the Unreal series is not your cup of tea,beer or whatever....:)

AlienMind

08-25-2006, 10:21 PM

what I like about UT is there's a game in it for all kinds of preferences, ...

So if I don't like the supermario movement with the pixelsized players, the all-looks-maps, and the non-techno music I get to play a game like the original Unreal Tournament? You are ****ting me!!!

Zoso Fan

08-25-2006, 10:52 PM

Millions? lol.

I meant billions! ;)

jjensson

08-25-2006, 11:10 PM

It's actually very nice that this thread didn't end up in a flame war. Thumbs up!

Now, let Epic know how mediocre we find the music of ut2003/2004 and let's hope for a better soundtrack this time ;)

jj

drak0n

08-25-2006, 11:13 PM

Now, let Epic know how mediocre we find the music of ut2003/2004 and let's hope for a better soundtrack this timeSpeak for yourself, bud. I enjoyed quite a few of the soundtracks from 2k4.

Phopojijo

08-25-2006, 11:30 PM

Don't bother. You ask the developers how the game is and all you get is a bunch of adjectives, exclamation points and unfinished sentences.Yea -- the only person allowed to say information prematurely is Mark Rein. :p

Hopefully there is one thing that can be answered -- why are Lauren's breasts progressively bigger with each iteration? :p

Mighty183

08-25-2006, 11:54 PM

I have to admit.. I was dissapointed with how onslaught turned out. I was looking forwards to it so much, when it came I loved the maps, the vehicles, the weapons. But the node gameplay. It was either too balanced or too unbalanced often the first team to get one node would win. or it would be a tie for ages. I loved the tribes series and how they intergrated vehicles, I loved UT's vehicles, I loved VCTF, just not ONS.
But I see that Epic are definatly fixing this.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-26-2006, 03:49 AM

Kyllian

08-26-2006, 04:06 AM

fragging with weapons is much harder then with vehicles.You've only run over noobs, haven't you?
I've played against decently skilled people and the only time you can run them down is when they're not paying attention.
More times than not I've ditched the vehicle and fought them on foot

Scylla

08-26-2006, 06:35 AM

Speak for yourself, bud. I enjoyed quite a few of the soundtracks from 2k4.

Idd, I actually prefered the orchestral/techno music of UT 2004.

Btw, it most likely will not change because I don't think they fired Kevin Riepl.

His Go down > Original :p.

Tarball|UTzone

08-26-2006, 08:44 AM

Hmm..

To be Honest sure ONS is not alike a "Classic UT Mode" you know like TDM,CTF ect.
But i like it, i like all UT modes exept of Insta low Grav...However
Sure it´s no Skill to be killed with a Vehicle, or even by a Redeemer, but
"I go with the Time".I´ll also agree with JJenson :D
Im sure it will be a great fun :)

jjensson

08-26-2006, 08:44 AM

His Go down > Original :p.

Oh, i thought "Go Down" was from UT99? That's great stuff. Unreal's soundtrack was amazing, UT99's was great, but as a musician (7 years music college, classical and jazz/rock/pop education...) i found the UT2k3/2k4 very unsatisfying :(

BTW, i have only made a game's soundtrack CD for 3 games to date: Unreal, UT99 and... Tron 2.0 :D

jj

VoodooPriest

08-26-2006, 04:36 PM

/me puts his homemade Stormtrooper outfit on in an pathetic attempt to get the following question answered,

Are there any improvements, large or small, done to the classic gametypes like CTF?

nice try, didn't work

I guess if you kill a flag carrier with a shock combo in UT2007 that sends the flag flying trough the map (physics man!) piercing and killing the guy next to him! Also flag carriers can now use the flag as a melee weapon slashing and piercing enemies from close distant and collecting ragdoll corpses on the flag pole!! In that way the flag carrier is extremely powerfull but also leaves a red (or blue) blood trail!!

and then I woke up

The5thviruz

08-26-2006, 06:46 PM

Oh, i thought "Go Down" was from UT99? That's great stuff. Unreal's soundtrack was amazing, UT99's was great, but as a musician (7 years music college, classical and jazz/rock/pop education...) i found the UT2k3/2k4 very unsatisfying :(

BTW, i have only made a game's soundtrack CD for 3 games to date: Unreal, UT99 and... Tron 2.0 :D

jj

The original Go Down is a very simple song and can easily be replicated in novice tools such as "Dance eJay".

Kevin and Alex are two completly different composers. Alex went for an entirely techno soundtrack where as Kevin's versions are more complex orchestral tracks with light drums over top.

Kevin wasn't using hardware and software from 1999 on his songs and it really does show when you compare two of them.

UT "Go Down" (http://ucmpforums.org/music/GODOWN.IT)

UT2004 "Go Down" (http://ucmpforums.org/music/KR-Hyperblast-Redux.ogg)

jjensson

08-26-2006, 06:48 PM

SHRK

I see, you like Simmons :D
jj

jjensson

08-26-2006, 06:52 PM

UT "Go Down" (http://ucmpforums.org/music/GODOWN.IT)

UT2004 "Go Down" (http://ucmpforums.org/music/KR-Hyperblast-Redux.ogg)

Thank you viruz, i'll give it a (ear)shot :)

Can you tell me the full names of the composers of the soundtracks of Unreal and UT99? Or just a link with accurate information?

Thx
jj

jjensson

08-26-2006, 07:05 PM

as Kevin's versions are more complex orchestral tracks with light drums over top.

Yeah, love the string frenzy. But as in all other realms of art, sometimes the simpler arrangement has more impact. On a personal level, i think the new version doesn't work that good. It's an "electronic" (read "techno") piece and it just doesn't sound that good with acoustic sounds. And the sounds in the original are delicious :D

jj

PS: Folks, sorry for the OT...

Kronos

08-26-2006, 08:55 PM

Honnestly I love UT and no matter the road it travels down I will follow it.

A_Spec

08-26-2006, 09:39 PM

Honnestly I love UT and no matter the road it travels down I will follow it.

Quoted for truth.

VoodooPriest

08-27-2006, 06:41 AM

I see, you like Simmons :D
jj

Yeah. I absolutely love H and TFOH this is just epic science fiction at its best. But haven't read the Endymion books yet some poeple tell me they are not as good. I also heard they are making a movie trilogy out of the Cantos.

Wowbagger

08-27-2006, 06:51 AM

Yeah. I absolutely love H and TFOH this is just epic science fiction at its best. But haven't read the Endymion books yet some poeple tell me they are not as good. I also heard they are making a movie trilogy out of the Cantos.

Epic Sci Fi? that sounds interesting im always after some good SciFi.
Is it Dan Simmons - Hyperion, The Hyperion Omnibus and The Fall of Hyperion youre talking about?

VoodooPriest

08-27-2006, 07:41 AM

Epic Sci Fi? that sounds interesting im always after some good SciFi.
Is it Dan Simmons - Hyperion, The Hyperion Omnibus and The Fall of Hyperion youre talking about?

Hyperion
The Fall of Hyperion

They are not really two seperate books/stories but the second one continues where the first one ended. The HYperion Omnibus is just an edition that contains both in one book.

And yes EPIC !!!!

Xyx

08-27-2006, 08:11 AM

haven't read the Endymion books yet some poeple tell me they are not as good.
True, not as epic either, but interesting nonetheless if you've read the Hyperion saga.

Slam!

08-27-2006, 08:33 AM

I played and loved Unreal (I remember my first LAN discovering the shock combo and owning people), UT, UT2k3 and UT2k4. I played mostly CTF, iCTF and (T)DM. At some point I was very active in Clanbase and played several hours a day for 3 years.

But with UT2k4 the Unreal series moved away from its roots. I have to say that I gave ONS a fair chance and tried it extensively in the beginning. Vehicles are just not fun for me. ONS is the worst gametype of any shooter ever also but not only because it favours the already winning team and its just pure boredom.

The only vehicular gametype I ever liked was Tribes2 siege mode but they had a good combination between outdoor and indoor action on every map and you could be very effective without vehicles.
You say that is true in UT2k4? Maybe so but in UT2k4 the AVRiL ist as boring as hell, works basically by itself and it puts the whole vehicular vs foot combat ad absurdum. I find myself not wanting to use the lame vehicles but not wanting to use the lame AVRiL either. So I just keep running around shooting with the shock rifle at Mantas or Raptors. OK I have to stop here ONS is just wrong, wrong wrong.

So after seeing the latest trailer my hopes for UT2k7 are fading away. I wanted to buy a conroe system now but I think I might wait or don't do it at all. It's seems this game is just more of the same ONS lameness. Why do you think CS is still so popular? Do you really believe vehicles would add anything to CS.? No they would change the core gameplay fundamentaly and in the end destroy it. The same is true for UT.

This is all going the wrong way. Is anyone feeling the same? I'm not saying the series must not evolve (Quake4 is boring because it has 0 innovations) but it must evolve in the right direction.

My first experience of UT was when a guy from work brought in his PC. He showed the guys UT and it was an absolute blast. Shortly after that, I decided to buy a PC so I could play UT. It was not long before night shift on Wednesday meant getting all our work done so that we could hook up our computers to play UT. We would play from 8PM till about 2AM at work. I also remember showing the guys how to do the shock combo and the look on there faces.

I work in a diiferent place now, but have played all the UT series of games and guys here like UT as well. Because of UT I am now on to my 2nd PC and am building my own PC in November. It will be a monster. I would not have been able to even contemplate doing this If UT had not come along and fired me up.

I also used to compete in CB matches, mostly iCTF, and can remeber the adrenaline rush that came from close games. One game we were playing was a qualifier to get to the semi-finals, and that lasted about 4 hours because it was so close.

I hope that UT2K7 can capture the excitement of the previous games. I still play online but there is a huge discrepancy between players on the servers. It seems you either own or get owned which does not make for a fun game. If Epic sort this out then Epic will be on to a winner. This is gonna be difficult though as you do not want to penalise the skilled players who havee put in the time and effort to gain there skills.

Anyway, I am thoroughly looking forawrd to the release of UT2K7.:D

jjensson

08-27-2006, 09:38 AM

But haven't read the Endymion books yet some poeple tell me they are not as good.

You have read only the 50% of the Hyperion saga. Read the Endymion books, it's the sequel. The end of the second Endymion book is the end of the saga, i would call it a tragic happy ending. The most sad and heartbraking story ever...

jj

Meledictum

08-27-2006, 09:53 AM

Honnestly I love UT and no matter the road it travels down I will follow it.
i will fallow it even if it will lead to the middle of hell...

Fury.T32

08-27-2006, 10:19 AM

going back to the original topic

*Rant warning, i didnt start as a rant but i got frustrated after reading all these whines about why ut99 was the best one whatever.....*sigh* rant warning over*

i believe ons (online and offline, i enjoyed both) was well and good. offline, sure i always won, but thats because bots are dumb >_<, online (on titan ons 32 player) we've had matched that seesaw from side to side, "hey look they got the node 1 second before us", well go take it the **** back!, its so annoying to go onto these things and find people complaining about something they havent 'actualy' played yet, this is NOT ut99, this is NOT 2k3/4, this is ut2k7, the new one, bigger graphics, refined gameplay, new features, different weapons layout. epic are trying to make a game that everyone wants to play, this involves putting in a mix, the have ons, warfar, dm, ctf, whatever, its all there for you to play, you dont HAVE to play all of them, but it gives you options, stop complaining about one feature that is purely optional!

rant over

P.S. i play TAM more than ons now, i got bored of ons after playing to for aaaaaaaages, tam is a diversion to get my close range fighting better, then i will go back to vehicles and build that up, sometimes i play CTF, or VCTF, sometimes also invasion, all the game modes have something tht appeals to me, i played CS, i got bored quickly because it was so very very very repetitive. BF" ive also played, was good, but not NEW enough, standard weapons, standard vehicles, been done before.

VoodooPriest

08-27-2006, 11:34 AM

going back to the original topic
P.S. i play TAM more than ons now, i got bored of ons after playing to for aaaaaaaages, tam is a diversion to get my close range fighting better, then i will go back to vehicles and build that up, sometimes i play CTF, or VCTF, sometimes also invasion, all the game modes have something tht appeals to me, i played CS, i got bored quickly because it was so very very very repetitive. BF" ive also played, was good, but not NEW enough, standard weapons, standard vehicles, been done before.

Well you can't have played ONS for aaaaages because UT2004 was only released in 2004. We have played all flavours of UT for eons and once you "get your close range fighting better" you won't go back for ONS because it will bore you to death.

You mention TAM: One reason why TAM is so popular because it actually has a built in feature that favours the loosing team (winning team starts with less armor, health) So they managed to evolve and balance the game in a much more intelligent way than epic has ever come up with.

I can only repeat my initial point: ONS was the wrong way to go and just not fun and unless epic manages to create a wholy new gamplay experience and balance out of the same basic vehicular combat system the Unreal series is going down.

Wail of Suicide

08-27-2006, 12:11 PM

Yes I've played it quite a bit. Last fall I wrote a note to our developers saying how much I really liked the movement and grip of the tire vehicles (hellbender, scorpion, etc), since then they've improved them even more.

Excellent news. I noticed that from the trailers so far that the wheeled vehicles are looking a lot more fun to drive. The Bender seems to have a nice fluid suspension system, hugging the ground instead of careening over it like an inflexible static-mesh ark. Glad to have some first hand confirmation that they've really got the wheeled vehicles performing nicely.

=XM=

08-27-2006, 02:42 PM

Anyone who doesn't recognise the massive flaws of ONS either hasn't played it or is stupid. Full Stop. Don't get me wrong. I bought and played UT. UT2003 didn't do anything for me. I bought UT2004 only because of ONS.

One thing you have to realise is this: yes postive feedback is a large part of many multiplayer games. But the amount and mechanism of it in ONS is stupid. Most of it has to do with map design. Some people have compared the PU control mechanism of TDM to vehicle/PU control in ONS. What these people are missing is that unlike in TDM, in ONS control is associated only with node ownership on most maps. Thus the cumulative advantage becomes too much. Not only that but speed at the start is the most important factor, generally, so that the first 2 minutes are usually what determines the outcome of the round. Get a good start and then start accumulating the advantages and positive feedback wins the match for you.

Take ONS-Torlan which is the perfect example of how not to design an ONS map. If you are faster and gain control of the middle, you have a significant advantage already (amp, camping spot, 2x 13.5s respawn fast vehicles spawning on top to allow fast attacks). If you take the enemy primary the match is over most of the time. All you need to do is suppress the node(2 people with shock rifle on the hill + an attack when possible) until your 3 other team members have secured all other nodes and vehicles start spawning. An Epic employee posted on INA how redeemer suicide runs had been anticipated by them, programmed into high level bots and how it is good for helping the losing team. On Torlan - the map they chose to demo the mode - the redeemer is on the central tower and accessible only using a raptor (there are trick jumps to do it using a manta but it takes too long to have ahope of reaching the top alive). The winning team has a raptor spawning right next to the tower and another one in their base. The losing team has only one and has to leave the base and reach the tower with usually 2 people on the hill spawning next to a weapon locker that gives avril/shock. In this context the winning team can always get the redeemer first and use it to do a kamikaze run using any of the 5 mantas and 2 raptors they have. The amp is similarly under the middle node and is much easier to time and take for the winning team. Amp spawn in 2 seconds and you are far from a node? Suicide, click on middle node. Spawn grab amp +weapon locker, node teleport to get a manta and attack. For the losing team they can forget getting there on foot. Using one of their 2 fast vehicles is the only option, if they can get there that is. The winning team also has 2xkegs, 3x100A, 2x50A; the losing team has 1xkeg and 1x50A. The weapon lockers are also badly designed in Torlan. The base locker has no avril which is present only as a pickup and there are only 2 ammo pickups for it in the whole base. The primary node which you are trying to take and then defend is downhill from the 2 closest uphill nodes that your enemy controls and they have a tank spawning at the closest node every 27s and another one as backup in their other tank node. It is also further from your base than the 2 said nodes. If you take it and spawn there trying to defend the only weapons you get are minigun, mine layer and link. I don't know about anyone else but I have only ever had 1 comeback in a clanwar after taking the middle and enemy side nodes on Torlan. And this single instance was 100% my team's fault (mis-understanding who was doing what because of over-confidence that the round was over). Similarly it has been my experience that the team who has a better start whether by luck or slightly better timing (there aren't many variations of opening tactics on Torlan) gains a significant advantage which generally wins the round.

You also have the other extreme like Dria. It suffers from the same general bad map design and ONS-specific issues but the primary node is closer to the losing team's base than the two linking enemy nodes. Thus it almost always goes to overtime with the losing team repeatedly taking and losing the primary while the winning team can't hold it long enough to finish the core.

Some simple vehicle spawn changes like in ONS-Torlan 3on3 v2 make a huge difference. Having sensible weapon locker contents is also important. Always have avril/shock in the base locker. Always one hitscan(shock/lg) and one close range(flak/rox) weapon and optionally avril in other nodes. Spread PU placements so that it isn't linked completely to node ownership. Definitely no redeemer (well no superweapons is there anyway, but why include a deemer in the first place?) to prevent the start being a deemer race and the end being a lockdown. Terrain and node placement are also important. Base to primary distance etc... Imo the only good balanced stock maps were Dawn(despite asymmetry) and Frostbite. With different link setups, e.g Jolt-setup in Arctic there can be improvements. Some reworks like Torlan 3on3 v2 are also nice. The worst were Torlan, RedPlanet (hills + sniper rifle + nodes = node suppression for ages, and other issues), Primeval (excess mine in base locker, tank at middle, asymmetry of manta tree-jump, etc...). Severance and Arctic had their issues but weren't bad especially with MutNoSuperWeapons and custom link setups. And to it's credit, Severance's retarded vehicle distribution in the base + node distances made for various creative and fun opening strategies. Although the simplistic node layout means all the strategies were trying to achieve the same thing in the first few minutes but using different methods.

CounterZeus

08-27-2006, 03:03 PM

I don't like ONS, it's just too big for me. I like indoor maps where you could have an enemy around every corner more. but it's there for the people who like it. I don't like it, so I won't play it. but why whining about something that you're not obligated to play?

MysTikal

08-27-2006, 03:30 PM

I play ONS when I'm bored. =XM=, Nice post. You just ruled the fatal flaws of some of Onslaught. Now, if only we can get the Epic Games officials to read this.

Sure, vehicles are fun, but when not used properly, can ruin gameplay. But, sometimes gameplay can be flawed, but it can also be fun. Like ONS-Spambox. Its unbalanced, stupid and has got too many vehicles in close proximity, but its extremely fun, and satisfying.

Maybe vehicles dont float your boat. As suggested earlier, noones forcing you to play with them. Im hoping the competitive community is still strong, and that we dont have to change UT2007 [very much] for competitive play.

VoodooPriest

08-27-2006, 03:55 PM

I play ONS when I'm bored. =XM=, Nice post. You just ruled the fatal flaws of some of Onslaught. Now, if only we can get the Epic Games officials to read this.

They know this of course, but they have to sell an engine more than they have to sell a game. (I guess it was different in the times of UT) It was already announced that ONS would return basically unchanged. All this while good old CTF is dying.

Crotale

08-27-2006, 04:45 PM

One of the biggest failures of Onslaught was to design maps such as Torlan with Superweapons being key to map balance. Everyone knows that pretty much only demo servers use Superweapons, therefore, most Torlan matches on non-demo servers are one-sided. I hope this ISN'T the case with UT2007.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-27-2006, 04:50 PM

How was Torlan one sided? The map is symmetrical and everyone has access to the same weapons and vehicles.

zeitgeber

08-27-2006, 04:52 PM

i agree with crotale. also i feel if super weapons are off the game is still balanced when there are 20+ppl on the server because nodes can go up and down really fast and a comeback is possible. sadly u cant expect 10v10 in ladder games

fuegerstef

08-27-2006, 05:08 PM

How was Torlan one sided? The map is symmetrical and everyone has access to the same weapons and vehicles.

Can you please send me your copy of Torlan? I played Torlan from the first day of the first demo and it was asymetrical since then... :confused:

BTW: The poster above your post wasn't even talking about asymetrical design, I think...

Monster w/21 Faces

08-27-2006, 05:12 PM

My bad, I could have sworn it was symmetrical on a 45 degree angle.

YARRR

08-27-2006, 05:20 PM

arrr tam is fer scallywags that cannae take the time to learn real ut

Monster w/21 Faces

08-27-2006, 05:24 PM

Your gimmick is old after one post. Congratulations.

Wail of Suicide

08-27-2006, 05:26 PM

Onslaught carried the UT2004 community for a long time. Personally, I think that's quite an accomplishment for one gametype. Flawed as it may be, Onslaught is fun for a lot of people, including myself. A lot of the major issues are just poor map design, although not all. My major complaint is the early game rush for nodes ... And I wish I could think of a way to resolve that issue but I'm not sure how possible it is. I'm looking forward to seeing how non-node objectives impact gameplay.

Crotale

08-27-2006, 05:27 PM

How was Torlan one sided? The map is symmetrical and everyone has access to the same weapons and vehicles.Did you not read =XM='s rather lengthy but fairly accurate post? For all intents and purposes, the match (round) is over in the first two minutes. Once a team has taken the majority of the nodes in that map (which can and usually does happen within that two minute timeframe), the defenders have an almost impossible task of trying to take back the offensive. Torlan isn't the only map with this issue. I've played on pub servers where it was the norm to have gone through 9 or ten rounds on Torlan in just over an hour. TBH, I've seen single deathmatches that last longer than a three-round match on Torlan.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-27-2006, 05:34 PM

GuntiNDDS

08-27-2006, 05:36 PM

i thinks its not that much about if its anyhow possible, but more about how likely it is.

amsterdam528

08-27-2006, 05:38 PM

My ONS games are never super onesided. Actually, it's quite easy to come back from having no nodes on Torlan... and I find that to be most of the fun of it. idk everything being balanced gets kinda boring sometimes.

Crotale

08-27-2006, 06:07 PM

Then seriously you're playing with idiots. No game I have ever played is to the point where the opposing team cannot come back against their attackers in two minutes.

Ofcourse deathmatch matches last longe. It's a totally different game mechanic.I did indicate pub play. Maybe most pub ONS players may be less skilled and knowledgeable players, but I wouldn't call them idiots. That is just rude. And I never stated that ALL matches are one-sided. Matches where the team who leads the early part of the match doesn't win is the exception rather than the rule on pubs.

In a match where both teams are fairly skilled and competent, such as clanwars and comp ladders, comebacks can and do happen quite often. But in a pub match most teams are not organized very well, if at all a lot of times. This only adds to preventing a losing team from making a comeback.

When it comes to discussing the game, I generally stick to how features and changes affect the general populous, not a small group of comp players (relatively speaking of course), unless the discussion spefically is going in that direction.

As for your comment on gameplay mechanics, I understand that. However, I was to understand that, on average, Onslaught was designed to be a longer lasting battle than deathmatch. I could be mistaken.

Scylla

08-27-2006, 06:10 PM

Then seriously you're playing with idiots. No game I have ever played is to the point where the opposing team cannot come back against their attackers in two minutes.

Ofcourse deathmatch matches last longe. It's a totally different game mechanic.

Lol, most players on ONS public servers are fools, no idea what the basis of the gametype.

You must be lucky to find a server which never has incompetent players.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-27-2006, 06:12 PM

I don't play on public servers and if that's you only experience of ONS online I'm surprised you haven't quit UT all together because it's no better for any other game mode.

GuntiNDDS

08-27-2006, 06:21 PM

well, most people do play on public servers, so epic should try to make that experience as good as possible.

Scylla

08-27-2006, 06:22 PM

I normally don't play ONS, so that's why I haven't been driven insane.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-27-2006, 06:25 PM

well, most people do play on public servers, so epic should try to make that experience as good as possible.

Why? Why encourage them in their inability to grasp basic gameplay premises? Why pander to the lowest common denominator?

GuntiNDDS

08-27-2006, 06:29 PM

because its the biggest amount of players. same reason why they shouldnt invite "pro-games" to the testing and ask them for help in how to change the game. the majority of the players arent pro-gamers .

also i dont see how playing on public servers automaticly relates to inability to grasp basic gameplay premises.

not everyone has 20 friends who also play ut, and not everyone has the time it takes to take part in a clan.

public servers are the most convinient way to get into a game with other players.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-27-2006, 06:33 PM

GuntiNDDS

08-27-2006, 06:58 PM

maybe..
but its not how it should be. when i buy a game i should be able to hop in and get the best game experience from within the game - without having to find stuff on the internet.

Kyllian

08-27-2006, 07:15 PM

haven't read the Endymion books yet some poeple tell me they are not as good.
True, not as epic either, but interesting nonetheless if you've read the Hyperion saga.
First thing that popped into my head was the game Einhander

Wail of Suicide

08-27-2006, 07:21 PM

It's not a ten minute deal to jump into a game and find a good community with private servers. The attitude that you're displaying Monster, that it's a new player's fault for not having years of experience with the game (or its predecessors), strikes me as part of the problem.

GuntiNDDS

08-27-2006, 07:29 PM

i have years of expierience with the game (and its predecessors) and yet i never played ONS on a private server once.

tho i hope they resolve all that problems with their "matchmaking" stuff they talked about. eg. use players rank/stats to find opponents who suit his skill level.

if that works out well, it may solve some of the problems that exist with public servers.

The5thviruz

08-27-2006, 09:18 PM

Why? Why encourage them in their inability to grasp basic gameplay premises? Why pander to the lowest common denominator?

To make money...that's why they keep making these games. That's why they keep changing them to add new things; So more people will buy it.

BTW: Hope you got 10 bux.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-28-2006, 05:37 AM

To make money...that's why they keep making these games. That's why they keep changing them to add new things; So more people will buy it.

BTW: Hope you got 10 bux.

But Epic has already said that 50 percent of people who buy Unreal never go online with the game. So there you have 50 percent of people already happy with the game because they never have to deal with pubbies.

Now why not actually do some good for the other 50 percent of players by not tailoring the game to re-res? I mean Gears of War is going to make Epic a bajillion dollars so they are in the perfect position to take a risk for the betterment of the community and online games a whole. If Epic pushes for competence maybe other games will follow in their footsteps.

Selerox

08-28-2006, 06:22 AM

And that is why they are rife with people who do not know what they're doing. Because it's easy. It takes 5 minutes to find a good forum based unreal community and it probably takes the same amount of time to find access to their own private servers. Those ten minutes is all that stands between a ****ty game experience and a great one.

Or how about have a decent tutorial system so people don't have to trawl around to figure out how to play the game (something I really think could make or break the game, ffs Epic take note).

I am absolutely 100% against anything that drives people away. The idea that the game shouldn't cater to new players because they're not very good is pretty poor imo, and it'll hurt the community. I don't care if the people who start playing UT2007 for the first time suck to high heaven, because they will get better.

I can garuntee that you sucked as well when you first started playing UT/FPS games.

Try not to be too elitist.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-28-2006, 06:28 AM

UT2004 HAD Tutorials.

»madMar†y»

08-28-2006, 07:01 AM

Yep, there where tutorials, but they where extremly basic and above that they are hidden somewhere in the single player section. A lot players don't bother about the single player and so probably won't notice them. It would be better to have a link to those tutorials on the main menu or to have some ingame feature.
The tutorials where to basic, cause it didn't explain things like how to change position in a vehicle. I've seen this question many times ingame and on the forums. Also there was no explaination about the ingame map in the corner of your screen( F12) and many other things. For most players these things seem obvious, but there still lots of players who have no clue what those things are.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-28-2006, 07:10 AM

The tutorials are in the community section which is on the main menu. Are you joking? How retarded do you have to be to not know how a map works?

»madMar†y»

08-28-2006, 07:21 AM

I know...very retarded. You should play Onslought on some 3e grade public server sometimes.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-28-2006, 07:45 AM

I don't play with pubbies, no matter what the game is.

Selerox

08-28-2006, 07:49 AM

UT2004 HAD Tutorials.

Those weren't tutorials, they were half-assed fly-bys. UT99 had a far better tutorial system, because you were in there game, you learnt by doing.

The tutorials are in the community section which is on the main menu. Are you joking? How retarded do you have to be to not know how a map works?

Hmm, lemme think. Someone who hasn't played an FPS game before maybe? <rollseyes>

Sorry, but not expanding the tutorial system extensively on the basis that players should know what they're doing already is just pathetic. How the hell is a game meant to gain new players when there's not the right atmosphere for them? Players with your attitude don't help new players, which means you're not helping the community.

New players are what keeps a community alive and stops it from stagnating. Anything - or anyone - that hurts the process of bring new players into the game is a problem. One of of the problems of UT2003/4 was the fact that the game was so hard for new players. It can't be allowed to happen again.

I seriously hope Epic doesn't listen to a word you say on this matter.

VoodooPriest

08-28-2006, 07:50 AM

I think one problem might be epics pride.

After UT2003 floped they admited that the whole sports theme, bombing run and some other things were not as fun as they had imagined. But it seems that they are not courageous enough to draw the same conclusion with ONS and the whole vehicular boredom. Thats why UT2k7 is in danger to face the same fate as it's 2k predecessors.
When people want tanks they play BF. full stop. People that want a fast paced skill centered shooter play UT.

People are right when they say that no one has to play ONS but imagine what kind of great game we would get if they would focus their resources to evolve the good old CTF further. amazing

Monster w/21 Faces

08-28-2006, 07:56 AM

Those weren't tutorials, they were half-assed fly-bys. UT99 had a far better tutorial system, because you were in there game, you learnt by doing.

Hmm, lemme think. Someone who hasn't played an FPS game before maybe? <rollseyes>

Sorry, but not expanding the tutorial system extensively on the basis that players should know what they're doing already is just pathetic. How the hell is a game meant to gain new players when there's not the right atmosphere for them? Players with your attitude don't help new players, which means you're not helping the community.

New players are what keeps a community alive and stops it from stagnating. Anything - or anyone - that hurts the process of bring new players into the game is a problem. One of of the problems of UT2003/4 was the fact that the game was so hard for new players. It can't be allowed to happen again.

I seriously hope Epic doesn't listen to a word you say on this matter.

No UT99 had bot matches, which UT2004 also has. Theres no excuse for not knowing how to play the game before going online other than sheer laziness.

I have no problem with new players coming to the game. Infact I encourage it. However like I just said there is no reason to not know how the game works. There are tutorials, there are bot matches and there is a single player campaign.

If there are people who still can't figure out how the game is supposed to be played after being given all of those chances to learn then i'm sorry, but I don't want them playing the game and you'll be hard pressed to find people that would. Why would anyone willingly invite that kind of laziness and purposeful ignorance into a community?

I think one problem might be epics pride.

After UT2003 floped they admited that the whole sports theme, bombing run and some other things were not as fun as they had imagined. But it seems that they are not courageous enough to draw the same conclusion with ONS and the whole vehicular boredom. Thats why UT2k7 is in danger to face the same fate as it's 2k predecessors.
When people want tanks they play BF. full stop. People that want a fast paced skill centered shooter play UT.

People are right when they say that no one has to play ONS but imagine what kind of great game we would get if they would focus their resources to evolve the good old CTF further. amazing

HOW! How do you push CTF forward? People like you keep saying this but how do you do it? You have two flags and you capture them. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT of the gamemode. Anything else and it's not CTF any more. The only thing that can actually effect ctf is the maps and you have no evidence that UT2007 hasn't got fantastic ctf maps.

If it wasn't for ONS and Warfare then UT2003/4/7 would just be graphical update and even then you would complain that it's not different enough.

Theres no pleasing you people. If they try something new you ***** and moan, if they stick to their guns you complain that they're just cashing in on the series.

You know what, you'll never be happy with anything they do and as such you should just stop playing their games. You want UT99? Then play UT99. You are not obliged to update every time a new unreal game is released.

VoodooPriest

08-28-2006, 08:29 AM

HOW! How do you push CTF forward? People like you keep saying this but how do you do it? You have two flags and you capture them. THAT IS THE WHOLE POINT of the gamemode. Anything else and it's not CTF any more. The only thing that can actually effect ctf is the maps and you have no evidence that UT2007 hasn't got fantastic ctf maps.

If it wasn't for ONS and Warfare then UT2003/4/7 would just be graphical update and even then you would complain that it's not different enough.

Theres no pleasing you people. If they try something new you ***** and moan, if they stick to their guns you complain that they're just cashing in on the series.

You know what, you'll never be happy with anything they do and as such you should just stop playing their games. You want UT99? Then play UT99. You are not obliged to update every time a new unreal game is released.

I already gave examples on how to make CTF more interesting and I also stated that I don't want UT99 because I liked many of the UT2kx innovations

Monster w/21 Faces

08-28-2006, 08:38 AM

If you've already posted them you'll have no trouble posting them again then will you.

Wail of Suicide

08-28-2006, 08:39 AM

Some alternative ideas for Onslaught:

I was thinking about how one could set up a map such that the winning team did not end up having a preponderance of vehicles with which to overwhelm the enemy team. The obvious solution here is that every team gets a specific vehicle loadout at the start of the match and that additional nodes do not provide additional vehicles. Example loadout: 4 Scorpions, 3 Mantas, 2 Hellbender, 1 Goliath, 1 Raptor.

However, I see this as an unsatisfying compromise as driving a vehicle from your base every time you want to use one would be boring. We want people to be able to be able to grab a vehicle from their spawn-node location, but we also want them to be able to go back to base if they want to, so their vehicles are not spawning in the line of fire.

Rather than having "vehicle factories" that work like the current vehicle factories, automatically spawning vehicles every so many seconds at every node, we could introduce the concept of "Pickup Bases" to vehicles -- Your team would have a limited number of each vehicles available to it on the map, but those vehicles could spawn at any node with the appropriate "pickup base."

For example, if your team had 4 Scorpions available to it on a particular map and you wanted a Scorpion vehicle you could go to a node with a Scorpion "Pickup Base" and step on the base. Once you step on the base your team vehicle count would decrement (now only 3 more Scorpions could spawn for your team) and a Scorpion would spawn for you on the base you stepped on. Similarly, you could also travel back to your team base and step on a Scorpion "Pickup Base" there, which would act the exact same way as any other Scorpion "Pickup Base." In this way, your vehicle would be available to you at any node with the appropriate "pickup base" but a limit on the total number of vehicles in play for any team could be enforced.

Carrying the idea further:

If you wanted to, you could change the idea around a little bit to, rather than specifying "4 Scorpions" to specify "4 Fast Attack-class Vehicles." Upon stepping on a Fast-Attack vehicle "pickup base" a player could choose whether to spawn either a Manta or a Scorpion. This would allow a bit more flexibility in vehicle loadouts while still maintaining a good mix of vehicles. The culmination of this general idea would be to have abstract "vehicle points" that could be used at any vehicle "pickup base" to spawn a vehicle (each would have different costs), but at that extreme of abstraction I feel like you would end up with the entire winning team merely spawning Goliaths and pummeling enemy spawn points, so I don't think that'd work very well.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-28-2006, 08:43 AM

VoodooPriest

08-28-2006, 11:08 AM

Monster w/21 Faces

08-28-2006, 11:13 AM

If it was only as easy to get rid of you.

The5thviruz

08-28-2006, 11:17 AM

Theres no pleasing you people. If they try something new you ***** and moan, if they stick to their guns you complain that they're just cashing in on the series.

You know what, you'll never be happy with anything they do and as such you should just stop playing their games. You want UT99? Then play UT99. You are not obliged to update every time a new unreal game is released.

Saved in a text document for re-posting later.

Scylla

08-28-2006, 11:18 AM

Sero

08-28-2006, 11:27 AM

Monster is right, there's no pleasing people who claim to be "good" fans.

All you want is UT with a graphical update, and even then it would probably not have that "UT feeling".

For God's sake just stop posting about how UT rocked, IT'S EIGHT YEARS OLD NOW (it was only game of the year in 1999, it was actually released in 1998).

You keep saying this when it has little to nothing to do with the situation though. Not everybody that aims for a certain feel necessarily wants ut99 in a new coat, and in this thread I've actually not had the impression we were dealing with such people.

Perhaps you should stop acting like every opinion that doesn't agree with you is somehow flawed.

Wail of Suicide

08-28-2006, 12:06 PM

I think letting a team only have a certain number would be a bad idea because some **** will come along and spawn them all in a big pile.

It might be an idea to have a situation like Tribes 2 or Planetside though where you have to go to construction pads and order your vehicle using some kind of ingame point system that comes from teamplay, kills and node capping. As you cap nodes smaller construction pads open up for fast and light vehicles but you'll still have to go to homebase to get the big guns.

Either that or have the equivalent of a mana bar that slowly charges up during gameplay and allows you so summon vehicles by air drop.

Well, any situation that utilizes vehicle construction pads seems like it's vulnerable to the same sort of sabotage. The obvious solution is to put a 30 second or more delay before the same pad can spawn another vehicle. It's ultimately not possible to prevent people who want to sabotage your team from doing so, though, whether it's by blocking vehicles in garages, driving them off to the middle of nowhere, sitting around doing nothing in a Goliath...

A resource/point system that allows you to accumulate points via game objectives is one of the things that I considered but I feel like it will be just another adrenaline -- A reward for the players who are already winning. A static vehicle count is the best solution I think, for preventing a snowball effect as the winning team gains more and more vehicles as they push the losing team back even more. Static vehicle counts means both teams are on mostly-even footing with regards to the resources they can bring to bear on the front lines.

fuegerstef

08-29-2006, 11:04 AM

Just make the maps balanced (attack-defense wise) and we have a winner. :)

Making more nodes connecting to the node than one will also help (apparently EPIC is doing that, as we saw on screens of Torlan2)

Mark Rein

08-29-2006, 11:31 AM

Take ONS-Torlan which is the perfect example of how not to design an ONS map. If you are faster and gain control of the middle, you have a significant advantage already (amp, camping spot, 2x 13.5s respawn fast vehicles spawning on top to allow fast attacks)....
XM--> Wow this a pretty detailed analysis. I'm not sure if you're right or wrong (or somewhere in the middle) but I'm definitely going to send your post to the team for a little internal debate. Epic is a company where feedback like this is often reviewed and discussed internally. We're constanting trying to listen to what the fans are saying about our game and make the next one better.

Mark Rein

08-29-2006, 11:38 AM

After UT2003 floped
Hang on for a moment here... UT2003 did not flop. It sold extremely well.

Xyx

08-29-2006, 11:43 AM

Any system that rewards winning players will produce lopsided results and drive away beginners. If you're getting beaten, the last thing you need is your opponents getting some "win even more" boost.

Adrenaline might have worked if you got it for getting killed.

I don't play TAM, but I suppose its "win less" features are part of what make it successful.

da ghost

08-29-2006, 07:34 PM

If theres one thing the Unreal community needs less of it's people who whine everytime Epic try and push the series forward.

yeah, i'm quoting this as well.

but removing the dodge-jump is still a leap in the wrong direction! A very slow and small leap that's less than half the leap that the dodge-jump takes, I might add.

»madMar†y»

08-29-2006, 08:15 PM

XM--> Wow this a pretty detailed analysis. I'm not sure if you're right or wrong (or somewhere in the middle) but I'm definitely going to send your post to the team for a little internal debate. Epic is a company where feedback like this is often reviewed and discussed internally. We're constanting trying to listen to what the fans are saying about our game and make the next one better.Yes I think XM was right about most things,espessially about Torlan. Comebacks on that map are rare and with a strong opponent only possible when you use the double damage in one of your fast vehicles (raptor or manta), to take back the middle and side node in a short amount of time. When a team loses it's primary node then a comeback is even harder cause when you look at everything you have to deal with then it becommes very hard.
What I've seen most is that at the moment the primary is down is that you have to deal with two tanks that are shooting at the primary (1 uphill in the neighbourhood of the central towar and 1 uphill near the side node.). At the same time you can expect ppl on the hills that are camping a litle and above of that you will get the other vehicles that are available attacking the primary. And now and then even a deemer flies towards the primary to make it even harder to get a comback. I hope the UT2007 version of Torlan will be better thought out. Nice to see that you ppl use the Forums.:cool:

Boksha

08-29-2006, 08:36 PM

=XM=

08-29-2006, 09:58 PM

Well Boksha in my experience there are two seperate but related issues.

The first is that the cumulative advantages snowball very quickly making an efficient start the most important thing. Ofc getting a better start isn't a guaranteed win, but between fairly matched teams the one with the better start has a significant advantage (more so than in TDM imo, having played both modes). This is annoying on maps like Crossfire where there is only a single manta in the base, placed on slopping terrain so that it starts moving and can crush the person trying to get inside it. Losing a Crossfire round due to this was common earlier on until people began to jump on the manta before entering it or the first person to reach it would flak it to make it stop sliding down.

This means that after a quick start, the mid-game can often be virtually inexistent and the match moves to the end-game. The end-game being the second issue.

The winning team now has a massive advantage after having taken all the nodes and destroyed the enemy primary (most of the stock maps have only one primary). This can lead to two extreme situations: the no comeback and base/node camping/spawn killing where the winning team can win very quickly if they are organised properly; like on Torlan. Because they have great height/distance/vehicle advantage.

The other extreme is where the same advantage means the losing team cannot comeback from beyond taking and holding their primary for a bit, maybe launching an attack here and there on a secondary. But because of node distances/vehicle distribution, the winning team cannot camp/hold down the primary for long enough either to mount a serious attack on the enemy core. An example is Dria where it takes long to bring a tank or bender to camp near the primary (whereas in Torlan the side tank needs to travel 10s to its camping spots and the bender actually spawns right next to where you place it on the hill usually). Also it can take long to come back to the node after dying due to long distances that need to be travelled (a smart team will periodically shoot the node even if they can't finish it off, so that dead defenders can't spawn right back). I suppose the latter will be more or less fixed in UT2007 because of hoverboards.

The trick imo is to solve the first problem by making longer chains of nodes or ones that can be broken in various ways (ONS-Dawn, Jolt link-setup on Arctic, Aheban, etc...) or super simple but a bit boring ones (Frostbite works well wrt this in 6on6, and isn't boring because of the continuous fighting in the middle node area that isn't simply a spamfest like the too open Primeval). This leads to a longer mid-game. A long mid-game isn't boring like a long end-game; where one side is just trying to push for overtime or can only hope to capitalise on the other side's unlikely mistake and the other is falling asleep camping while nibbling at the core whenever possible.

The second problem is more complex and I think needs a good map designer who understands how the vehicles, weapons and powerups (mainly amp: to attack the core or retake a node) are going to be used once one side is down to it's last node and how distances/elevation affect things. Clearly, if a visibly better side has gone through a good start and good mid-game and is now holding everything without difficulty, the map design should allow them to win quickly rather than be held into overtime. Similarly, a good enough team against an opponent of similar level should have a fair chance of making a comeback through teamwork, good timing and communication. There isn't a magic solution other than a good mapper for this. Ofc an easier way to facilitate this is to never use single primary link setups. 2 primaries (and 2+ routes) is ideal I think and working from there might be easier for a mapper. There are plenty of community made maps that exhibit these qualities and where the games are quick between teams of visible skill difference and long/intense (but not just a long end-game) between fairly matched teams with nodes swapping back and forth.

Like I mentioned in the "longest match ever" thread in the Ut2004 forum; a dual primary map (in that case Apocalypse) made it possible for my team to lose a round after having taken down the enemy Core to about 50% and holding all but one node (the other enemy primary). Because they reacted quickly after retaking their second primary and the map actually allowed them to react; by cutting our link to their first primary without actually re-taking it. This makes for more exciting games imo, whether they last long or not. They are fast paced and fun: what UT is about.

P.S: Wow, another long one. Wrote it during a few breaks adding stuff without realising it was turning into another bloody novel. :o

P.P.S: That's great news Mark Rein! There are several other good posts in this thread about a some flaws of ONS. First stab at a gametype and making maps for it can't be 100% on the spot. Hopefully ONS will get all the attention it deserves in UT2007.

nighty

08-29-2006, 10:15 PM

I also was one of the long time Unreal players (since the original Unreal) who disliked ONS. I am also one of the community supporters who has paid for, hosted, and admined literally dozens of servers since the beginning days. When the UT2004 Demo arrived, I hosted an ONS server for Torlan, and then a retail server for about 3-4 months. Sadly, it just didn't do it for me or most of my gaming friends. The tedious node capturing, tending, and defending was just over the top boredom IMO.

I had just about given up hope for vehicle based UT until VCTF arrived. VCTF to me is the pinnacle of exciting, fast paced, vehicle enhanced gameplay coupled with clear and defined offense and defense objectives that even new players can understand. I sure hope Epic makes the effort to develop this created but previously unsupported gametype.

Benfica

08-29-2006, 10:48 PM

But the amount and mechanism of it in ONS is stupid. Most of it has to do with map design.
Sometimes the map design is fine, the problem is using always the default node setup, when it is determined it doesn't work. People are just conservative

»madMar†y»

08-30-2006, 05:43 AM

Oh come on...
it was obvious right from the start that giving the winning team more vehicles made it easier for them to keep winning. In fact the endless endgames, where all the losing team could do was to keep defending their core hoping to reach the timelimit, have, as far as I know, always been the #1 complaint about ONS. I've played many different maps and this never was a problem. Although you sometimes haven't got a single node left on some map, there will usually be chances enough to fight yourself back and to recover the nodes. IMO it has not much to do with the gametype itself, but with the mapdesign of some maps. Torlan is a good example of a bad map. Endless endgames only happen on maps where you're able to defend the primary nodes very well. Torlan is not one of those maps cause you hardly can protect the primary node and on maps like Dawn you can and that's why you have endless battles on those kinda maps.

VoodooPriest

08-30-2006, 06:28 AM

Hang on for a moment here... UT2003 did not flop. It sold extremely well.

Ok maybe it was not a flop but it had a smaller playerbase compared to UT99.

XM--> Wow this a pretty detailed analysis. I'm not sure if you're right or wrong (or somewhere in the middle) but I'm definitely going to send your post to the team for a little internal debate. Epic is a company where feedback like this is often reviewed and discussed internally. We're constanting trying to listen to what the fans are saying about our game and make the next one better.

While it is good to see that you people actually read our concerns it is also a little frightening because excaltly these concerns about ONS were posted on day one UT2k4 came out on the old Atari forums.
It is the basic flaw of ONS and I would have hoped that you guys had already analyzed your game and it's flaws BEFORE starting with the design of UT2k7 ONS and UW.
Anyway you also know that fanboys like me will whine about ONS and vehicles all day and still buy the freakin game on day 1. ;)

Kyllian

08-30-2006, 07:11 AM

Endless endgames only happen on maps where you're able to defend the primary nodes very well.*cough*Dria*cough*
Primary node can be sniped down from inside the base(when the enemy has that one left to build)

r1esG0

08-30-2006, 07:49 AM

Ok maybe it was not a flop but it had a smaller playerbase compared to UT99.

its so easy to say ut99 has a bigger player base than ut2k3/ut2k4

that doesn mean its beacuse ut2k3/ut2k4 is worst, i can give you 3 reasons:

-ut99 has been more time on stores, because is an older game
- there are lots of ppl who doesnt want to get a new pc to play the new game.

If you have an old machine, you can still play ut99, but if you dont have money to upgrade, obviously youre not going to put ut2k4 on your old machine.

-ut99 is easier to crack too
(i am not making apologize of playing on pirated games, i buy original games and i would like everybody to do the same, im only telling you that ut99 has more players because in the world there is ppl who makes piracy, and this is the truth, so as long as they can steal it, they will play it, accept it)

With ut2k7 it will happen the same.

Less ppl has the enough machine to run it. It will be hard to crack (being this a good thing).
It will have less players.

Are you going to say ut99 is better than ut2k7 because it has more player base? So you dont get the idea.

Boksha

08-30-2006, 08:14 AM

its so easy to say ut99 has a bigger player base than ut2k3/ut2k4

that doesn mean its beacuse ut2k3/ut2k4 is worst, i can give you 3 reasons:

-ut99 has been more time on stores, because is an older game
- there are lots of ppl who doesnt want to get a new pc to play the new game.

If you have an old machine, you can still play ut99, but if you dont have money to upgrade, obviously youre not going to put ut2k4 on your old machine. Neither of these are good arguments, because UT had more players in it's OWN time than UT2k4 did, meaning that UT had more players even though it had been in the shops for the same time and needed just as powerful a PC for it's time.

There are other arguments of course; UT2k4 had more competition from other games, and WW2 games are now extremely popular. And yes, UT was easier to play without actually buying it.

A point of interest: when I say "players" here, I mean online players specifically. UT2k3 and UT2k4 both sold way more copies than UT did, yet it appears a lot of those people never bother with online play.

I've played many different maps and this never was a problem. From my experience this was a serious problem in pub games, especially on Torlan. For an analysis of play between more experienced parties, I'll refer to =XM='s post.

A_Spec

08-30-2006, 09:21 AM

Well, after reading through most of these post I can conclude only one thing on ONS;

Dual node setup is the only way the get rid of alot of problems. Choke nodes are awfull.

DeadLast

08-30-2006, 01:21 PM

I think he means that it actively helps the team that gets a break to the point where the entire game revolves around getting a great start and nothing much else.

Take CTF for example. No matter the skills of the teams, if tactics remain the same, the losing team has exactly the same chance of scoring at any point in the match, even if they're losing.

In ONS, if you start losing, the game ends up in a feed-back loop. If you lose a node, the match instantly puts your team at a huge disadvantage, therefore making it harder to retake the node. This effect gets magnified by the number of nodes.

In CTF (or BR, DDOM or TDM even) it's possible - if unlikely - to come back and win a match if you're losing badly. In ONS it's impossible without some form of divine intervention.

Gametypes have to be designed in such a way as to make a come-back possible. ONS seems to have been designed to deliberatly prevent the losing team from having a chance, because they more you lose, the easier it gets to lose even more.

It's the reason I don't play ONS.

EXACTLY! That's why I don't play ONS either.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-30-2006, 01:34 PM

EXACTLY! That's why I don't play ONS either.

Then it's a shame Epic are forcing you to play it like a certain character from a movie named after mechanical fruit. OH WAIT! THEY'RE NOT!

I guess you'll just have to play DM, TDM, CTF, BR, DDOM, AS and INV instead!

I'm playing the worlds smallest violin just for the ONS haters.

GuntiNDDS

08-30-2006, 02:11 PM

this old "then dont play it" argument really doesnt do anything here.
the reasoning behind why certain players do not like a gametype is properbly the most valuable information for epic in case they -really- want to improve gameplay.

where would we be today if people never expressed their critism ?

we all have the desire for a better game with every release, and while saying "yes, holy epic god, we'll just play whatever you hand to us" might seem "faithfull" to some, it doesnt bring anything any further.

Monster w/21 Faces

08-30-2006, 02:17 PM

Well I'll tell you what, I wouldn't already have 3 warning points from sticking up for Epics design decisons.

drak0n

08-30-2006, 02:29 PM

Well I'll tell you what, I wouldn't already have 3 warning points from sticking up for Epics design decisons.
Oh that's the reason? And here I was thinking it was because of your sunny disposition :rolleyes:

Monster w/21 Faces

08-30-2006, 02:32 PM

Well I am a happy chappy.

fuegerstef

08-30-2006, 03:02 PM

BAh... ...all those people telling that ONS favours the winning team have no clue that this can easily be balanced by map design.

I admit that this hasn't been done in UT2004... ...but you do not even have to change the rules of ONS and can make it better balanced than for example TDM or 1on1 with weaponstay off. :)

VoodooPriest

08-30-2006, 05:09 PM

A_Spec

08-30-2006, 05:47 PM

Dual path setup, like the T32 version.

Hanji

08-30-2006, 06:07 PM

»madMar†y»

08-30-2006, 06:10 PM

I set my linky on Torlan in two ways like this if anyone wants to see:
Link set 1: http://img169.imageshack.us/img169/3245/linkset1ny8.jpg
Link set 2: http://img75.imageshack.us/img75/2221/linkset2pe3.jpg
Direct middle or two links to powercore, others as optional, lots of on foot combat(not)......No that defenitly won't work. With both linksetups the center node becommes the main target of the whole match, both teams will now only concentrate at the centernode----> giant spamfest. ;)

Hanji

08-30-2006, 06:16 PM

So? Ain't it fun?

fuegerstef

08-30-2006, 07:02 PM

So how would your balanced version of torlan look like?

Go to ataricommunity.com and search for my really long post where I wrote that down. (EDIT: Might be also available in this forum as the post got carried over)

I really cannot be bothered to write it down every fortnight...

»madMar†y»

08-31-2006, 05:16 AM

I remembered the thread, so here ya go:

First of all: I am not talking about balnce in a symetrical way but about the balance defenders/attackers.

1. No hitscan nor AVRiL at primary. Defenders have to get that in base, which takes long. Attackers can teleport everywhere anyways and get these weapons. SO THERE WAS ABSOLUTELY NO REASON FOR NO SHOCK OR AVRIL AT PRIMARY. :down:

2. No line of sight from base (which is OK) but line of sight from Tanknode. :bulb:

3. Primary nodes are lower than Tanknodes. Easily spammed down upon. Hard to get to Tanknode from. :bored:

4. Way from base to primary is longer than from other nodes. The other team has 4 times the ressources and then also are closer to that node... ...lol (this is not just bad, this is ridiculously stupid to say the least).

5. Weak vehicles in base, Strong vehicles at next nodes. :sour:

6. Very open area with no cover on your way from base to primary.

7. Base can easily be spammed by Tanks from mountains. (Ever wondered why castles are build ON mountains, not at the foot of a mountain in real life ???? Because of SPAM!! To make a balanced map the designers only had to look at real life.)

8. AND THE WORST THING: THE WATER ON THE GROUND IS MIRRORING BLUE SKY... ...BUT THE SKY ON TORLAN IS RED. Makes the map unplayable IMHO.

These are just the main reasons, there are a few others. :downcast:

The thing I like about Torlan compared to most custom maps is that the whole map is important, not only the node areas (but Dawn for example has that too, even better than on Torlan). :heart:

Oh, and on Dawn you at least have midgame with variations, wich is far more interesting than the defenders desperatly rushing at first node, just to get spammed to death. http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=510869&highlight=torlan

fuegerstef

08-31-2006, 05:32 AM

Nice find...

I actually have more reasons written down somewhere. They are more about general gameplay balance instead of Torlan.

I will search through the forums later...

VoodooPriest

08-31-2006, 05:45 AM

8. AND THE WORST THING: THE WATER ON THE GROUND IS MIRRORING BLUE SKY... ...BUT THE SKY ON TORLAN IS RED. Makes the map unplayable IMHO.

That is just a scandal.....

Xyx

08-31-2006, 06:20 AM

all those people telling that ONS favours the winning team have no clue that this can easily be balanced by map design.
Yeah. A really long, narrow map with a ton of vehicles and a single node next to each core. Har. That'll make for some fun games. Travel through no-man's land for five minutes only to get spammed by some tank when you get there. That favors the loser, alright. To the point of deadlock.

Kyllian

08-31-2006, 06:34 AM

Bah, what map was it where the nodes were placed in a diamond-grid pattern.
I haven't played it, but I hear it's pretty well designed

As for Torlan, isn't one of the node layouts shaped like this?

O o--o
| | |
| o |
| | |
o--o O

»madMar†y»

08-31-2006, 06:44 AM

Nope.....The Split square setup http://img325.imageshack.us/img325/6093/splitsquarexw0.jpg

fuegerstef

08-31-2006, 06:52 AM

Yeah. A really long, narrow map with a ton of vehicles and a single node next to each core. Har. That'll make for some fun games. Travel through no-man's land for five minutes only to get spammed by some tank when you get there. That favors the loser, alright. To the point of deadlock.

Again you show that you have no clue about gameplay.

Xyx

08-31-2006, 04:42 PM

You, sir, should back up that hollow statement with solid arguments.

fuegerstef

08-31-2006, 05:29 PM

You, sir, should back up that hollow statement with solid arguments.

Search... ...I explained IN DEATIL (I repeat for you: IN DETAIL) how Torlan for instance should look. Nowhere I stated something like long corridors between nodes.

In fact: If you were able to read you had seen that I even wanted the opposite of what you implied I was meaning earlier. Somebody was so kind to even quote it in green color.

So, just for you I will quote myself from the last page...

The thing I like about Torlan compared to most custom maps is that the whole map is important, not only the node areas

It is not my fault I always have to write everything at least twice for you.

EDIT:
Maybe tomorrow I have time to search through your posts to quote the stuff you wanted that really would hurt gameplay. And I am talking about the casuals pubbing and competitive gaming, not only the latter.

VoodooPriest

08-31-2006, 05:32 PM

Search... ...I explained IN DEATIL (I repeat for you: IN DETAIL) how Torlan for instance should look. Nowhere I stated something like long corridors between nodes.

you did? I missed that too.

fuegerstef

08-31-2006, 05:53 PM

you did? I missed that too.

http://utforums.epicgames.com/showpost.php?p=24613819&postcount=160

:rolleyes:

If you look closely, you might realize that the above is a link to a post in this very thread.

This is currently post #170 and I linked to post #160 in this thread. So all you have to do, is to look a few posts above. And you should have done earlier.

EDIT: I also might add this:
http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=404609

AFAIK, you already joined the forum when this thread was discussed, Xyx, so why do I have to write it down again??????? Actually: you even replied in that thread.
Oh, and the whole thread should be read for more info and the general opinions.

jjensson

09-01-2006, 08:21 PM

Gregori

09-01-2006, 08:28 PM

ONS is quite a popular gamemode, thats why Epic is putting to of them in UT2k7. Obviously alot of people find it fun enough to continue it, although you don't like it personally.

Kyllian

09-01-2006, 08:30 PM

I found BR to be quite fun in 2k3(and decently populated)
2k4 comes with the TL drain by default, and BR becomes a desert

God I miss playing EO-BR in 2k3

Gregori

09-01-2006, 08:36 PM

I found BR to be quite fun in 2k3(and decently populated)
2k4 comes with the TL drain by default, and BR becomes a desert

God I miss playing EO-BR in 2k3

I thought BR was alot more fun than UT2kx CTF, DDOM.

VoodooPriest

09-02-2006, 05:58 AM

I found BR to be quite fun in 2k3(and decently populated)
2k4 comes with the TL drain by default, and BR becomes a desert

God I miss playing EO-BR in 2k3

It was fun at the beginning but only to the point where people started to translocate and pass the ball to themselves. That was just hillarious and people who played BR the first time didn't even realize what was going on or how the ball actually went into the hoop.
I don't think the TL drain killed BR but the many gamemodes of UT2004 that diluted the playerbase extremely.

They should really drop ONS this time around and only bringt DM, TDM (or even better TAM), CTF and Unreal Warfare

»madMar†y»

09-02-2006, 06:09 AM

They should really drop ONS this time Why should they drop one of the most popular gametypes:confused:.

GuntiNDDS

09-02-2006, 06:32 AM

the question is: why is ons the most popular gametype ?

- because all of ut2k4's marketing focussed on it ?
- because it was still playable with 32 players/Server ?
- because dm/ctf did not envolve ?
- because it was a new concept ?
- because it was easier to get into for new players ?

or

because it was actually a great gamemode ?

SHAGBOT

09-02-2006, 06:36 AM

i have ut2004 and my favorite game type is ons all the way!! i don't like dm at all because the weapons aren't all that tactical. theres nothing better than the satisfaction you get when you shoot a guy with the scorpions sticky cannon! i think they should only focus on ctf, dm, and ons. the unreal warfare sounds great though! it sounds more tactical and team based than ons. i want to play it first, but right now i think that if i had to choose between ons and uw i would say uw. i want something with awesome vehicles and tactics.

GuntiNDDS

09-02-2006, 06:38 AM

the weapons in dm arent tactical ?
you got long range, mid-range, close-range weapons. and things like the goo gun which has its own tactical oppertunities.

i really cant recall another fps with weapons as tactical as thoose within 2k3/4.

SHAGBOT

09-02-2006, 07:00 AM

what i mean is like counter strike is really tactical because if you run out in the open you're dead. you got to use cover and stuff like that. i guess what i mean is that most unreal tournament dm matches aren't that tactical, because they're mostly open spaces without boxes or anything for cover.

VoodooPriest

09-02-2006, 07:54 AM

»madMar†y»

09-02-2006, 08:13 AM

Altough they haven't said anything about the gamplay of the UT2007 Onslought yet, I'm sure they'll improve the gametype. (I think there where already changes vissible in the 3e cam). As far as I know they also haven't said anything about the gameplay of the new Warfare yet. They indeed only said things about the new vehicles, cause it's probably to early to say something about it yet.

Wail of Suicide

09-02-2006, 08:38 AM

Everyone can make some kills with a Goliath, thats the only thing that speaks for ONS because it attracted some new players. But after 3 days ONS gets dead boring because you start to get annoyed by its flaws. The same is not true for good old CTF which is a timeless concept.

All I want to hear from Epic is: We improved ONS which was a good idea but ultimately flawed by doing this and that and that, adding A and removing B. We also got rid the positive feedback loop by changing XYZ or designing maps ABC style. Then I would give it another shot.

But so far we only hear: MORE VEHICALS!!!

That's called advertising. I don't think most people have a really firm grasp of the gametype or map flaws of ONS. I mean, look at some of the posts on this forum - And the people who are registered and posting here at the UT2007 are a self-selected group of dedicated UT fans. That means that the majority of people aren't going to even understand what you're talking about when you talk about a "positive feedback loops" and so on. If you try to advertise on subtle points either no one will care and thus interest won't be raised, or they'll be actively turned off by a focus on narrow issues whose impact they don't have the experience to understand.