Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Another UT2007 Idea…

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    I think the original posters idea is pretty good, as long as it was implemented well. So if you were on a 10 player map, and all but two players left, the next map would be a 1v1 map, but if 8 more players joined, the next map would be the next 10 player map in the rotation, not just the first available 10 player map.

    I think Mapvote is a good idea in theory, but as has already been stated, in practice you end up with the same maps being played over and over again because nobody wants to vote for something the don't know.

    Sadly, you have to force-feed change to people sometimes, which is why I prefer servers that have an admin-tested rotation of top quality maps, alternating stock maps with custom ones.

    It's a great way to introduce players to new maps without alienating them with too much unfamiliarity, and it's way more fun that just doing the same stock five maps again and again.

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Xyx
      Voting for map order only makes things worse. All the "good" maps will be played in a row, then the server will empty.
      Not neccessarily. Allowing people to vote gives an advantage of a majority of voters a say in what map comes next, something a map rotation doesn't allow at all. I'm not an advocate of a mapvote setup that requires all maps to be played before they all reopen, but that's one solution of many that server admins could allow. If your maplist or map rotation has bad or very unpopular maps people will leave the server regardless.

      Originally posted by Boksha
      In the end though, the people at the end of the list can't choose what to play, while the people at the start of the list will only play maps they already know very well.
      As I said, different problem, different solution. You can choose to free up certain maps again after a few have been played or work the list to it's completion and then reopen all the maps. I prefer mapvotes that make available a map for replay after a few others have been played because it gives the players the chance to choose it again if they like, but not too quickly. But that's my standard.

      Originally posted by Boksha
      Letting people choose the order to play maps in is like having mapvoting half the time, and a fixed maplist the other half, with the additional bad point of having maps with similar gameplay grouped together (if the server's full of hitscan whores when all maps are still available, you'll have lots of hitscan maps in a row, and then only close range maps when the hitscan maps are all grayed out)
      Maps with similar gameplay aren't neccessarily grouped together though. And the decision is still left to players what to choose next. You asked for a solution to a different problem, so I gave you different solution. The bigger point is that server admins will be the ones picking the maps in the rotation, or what can be voted on, and how. Giving the players the option to choose has it's perils just as having a locked map rotation has it's own set of perils.

      Originally posted by Boksha
      I still prefer a properly managed and thought out maprotation without voting.
      Sure, that's your standard. Others might prefer to let the players decide for themselves. It's like a dictatorship vs a democracy - only the citizens have absolute control on whether or not they'll reside in your country. Both map rotations and votelists have their ups and downs. In one hand you have the more popular maps played more often. That does not mean neccessarily that the best maps are the only ones played. In the other hand you have maps sorted by the desires of the server admin. That does not mean neccessarily that the best maps are evenly distributed in the map list. The bottom line is if all the maps are good and/or popular maps you'll have a better chance of retaining players, all other things considered (good location and bandwidth, good administration, friendly community, forum support, etc).

      BTW, how do you like my sig?

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by Logy
        I think the original posters idea is pretty good, as long as it was implemented well. So if you were on a 10 player map, and all but two players left, the next map would be a 1v1 map, but if 8 more players joined, the next map would be the next 10 player map in the rotation, not just the first available 10 player map.
        I think the key here is to make sure you don't have maps in your rotation that are too small for the max player limit. For example Deck17 is a great 1on1 map, but holds it's own with 16 players. 1on1-Roughinery is just too small to house 16 players. Most DM maps will hold 10 players decently.

        Originally posted by Logy
        I think Mapvote is a good idea in theory, but as has already been stated, in practice you end up with the same maps being played over and over again because nobody wants to vote for something the don't know.
        The upside to that is more popular maps means more players on the server. It's a double edged sword just like having a map rotation has it's plusses and minuses. The bigger point is the maps that are in the rotation or votelist should all be good maps.

        Originally posted by Logy
        Sadly, you have to force-feed change to people sometimes, which is why I prefer servers that have an admin-tested rotation of top quality maps, alternating stock maps with custom ones.
        Players can also make their own determination on what to play. I prefer servers that let you vote for your next map, but don't allow you to play the same one immediately again. Like you I prefer the maps to be good admin-tested ones.

        Originally posted by Logy
        It's a great way to introduce players to new maps without alienating them with too much unfamiliarity, and it's way more fun that just doing the same stock five maps again and again.
        They can also choose that for themselves. And it's not neccessarily true that the same 5 maps get played again and again, any more than it's true that the best maps are effectively distributed or in the rotation. For example Boksha might leave a server with Grendelkeep on it and I might leave one with Rankin on it. Both are great DM maps, but I am tired of one and he's tired of the other. However if we were on a server we'd vote for different maps, and possibly leave if the map we don't like gets picked. It would be the same if each of those maps came up in a map rotation. One of us would probably be leaving when the map we didn't like came up, even if they are good or popular maps.

        Comment


          #34
          I’m hearing a lot of good ideas here and I don’t know why we can’t implement the majority of them.

          I typically play with the same 2-15 people on a regular basis. As you know 90% of the fly by nighters have left and now it’s only us hard core UT players on the scene. So most of us are way past the point of playing the same six maps over and over and over again and given the amount of maps we have on our server (300+). We don’t bother with map voting unless were dying to play a certain map. So as I said, it would be nice if the engine could recognize how many people were left on the server and then switch to a bigger or smaller map based on that amount. I love playing new maps I just have no fricken clue which map is which.

          But I don’t see why we have to take away from the majority of the ideas here when implementing this function. I don’t think it’s one or the other it can be both. Vote if you need and if you want to play a new map let the system do it for you.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by Demolition
            I don’t know if the UT2007 does it now but it sure would be nice if the game engine could recognize how many players there are in the map. So when it automatically switches to a new map. It matches the map size with how many players there are and switches to a bigger or smaller map accordingly. I don’t know how many times I’ve had this happen to me. Where there are only two of us and it switches us to 8-10 man map.

            Not a ground breaking idea but IMO it would be one more thing that would make UT2007 great!
            I like.:up:

            Probable could do a better job at picking the right size map. Especially if you run some custom maps that a lot of people may not be familiar with. Otherwise people will just pick the maps they a familiar with.


            And while where on the subject of UT2007 ideas I would like to see in the animation of the characters things like. Lets say you have the flag and you see foxtrot up ahead you say into the microphone. “Foxtrot take point”, your character actually make a gesture, kind of pointing forward then Foxtrot runs ahead of you when you come to a fork in the road Foxtrot would say “which way” then you would reply right or left. Right now the bots cover you but pretty much just lag behind you when most of the action is in front of you. The helpful gestures would add a lot to online play. So many things could be added and useful simple things like hello, your character could wave hello.

            I guess I combined two things I would like to see in UT2007, more bot commands and gestures for online play. Some more bot commands would be “make a hole” or “stand clear” and the bots would go right or left to your vector, essentially letting you pass. Or how about “Go around” so the bots will stop pushing your vehicle with theirs and go around instead. And one I would like to see especially for VCTF. “Hop on” when you driving the manta and the bot has the flag and “Pick me up” when you have the flag and you spot a bot teammate close by with a vehicle.

            And another thing I would like to see in UT2007 that might be controversial. How about having the translocater be like a weapon as far as ammo. So when you spawn you have 6 shots. After you use your six shots then you have to run over additional ammo just like you have to do with any weapon. Basically I would like to see the translocation restricted to a catch up weapon when you get killed pursing the flag carrier and have to start over.

            Also another thing I would like to see in UT2007 is if you get wounded you leave a blood trail. This would be good especially on 1 vs 1 maps. You have to be wounded pretty good though. And the blood trail would last about maybe 20 seconds at least.

            And I would like to see the offline play very customizable. You could put in the moves you like or take them out. Change the game speed, how much damage the weapons put out and the rate of fire. If you want translocator to fire 5 times then you have to pick up ammo; change team colors and emblems. Have it if you want a dropped flag have a time on it so when the carrier gets killed it can’t be returned for like a second. I’m tired of bots using the translocator to retrieve their flags before it even hits the ground not giving you an opportunity to pick it up. Be able to customize the bot names. Different weapons systems on vehicles so you can change them out if you want to. Basically have it so when you play off line you can have it just the way you like it. I like to play UTclassic mod that was included with the game but a lot of maps don’t work with this mod. Bots get stuck in holes and try to jump up ramps. I wish this would be fixed but I guess it’s not going to be.

            Oh also when you get it just the way you like it to be able to have it so when you play single player you can play it the way you set it up. Like I said, I like the UTclassic mod but you can’t play single player with it.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by Ultron
              That's a good idea for a map rotation manager it selects based on the number of people left on the server when it switches.
              Would be kinda hard to do with UT2007 supposed streaming map loads...

              Comment

              Working...
              X