No announcement yet.

What went wrong and the future of assault?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    What went wrong and the future of assault?

    Hi guys,

    I've been curious for an answer on this one (preferably by epic team itself), but what did really go wrong with assault in ut2k4, why it wasnt such a big success as in ut99. Does epic have an statement/opinion on this?

    Do you think that epic should have implemented hammer- and rocketlaunching in the assault mode, but explain it better to the public by for example tutorials.
    I know many of you have seen hammer- and rocketlaunching as an exploit ( i never did, as ive been playing ut assault from the beginning), but what if there was support from epic to this. Would you then still think about it the same way?
    I think it's a good add-on to the sports theme. As launching and hammerjumping really improves teamwork and strategies. But on the other hand it's more difficult for newcomers to join, in a gametype that has been there for several months/years.

    Anyways i've heard that assault won't be included in ut2k7 as a stand-alone gametype but is part of the warfare? gametype.
    If epic wants some input, just ask the people on for some of our ideas. I think we can give u some hints. Even when u decide that hammers and rocketlaunching will never be part of ut again. With our experience of assaultmaps we would love to give u some good input to make this game a success.

    listen to yer fans and dont be narrow-minded!

    Played UT99 Assault a few times... I liked domination better... And that's not saying much considering I played Dom for a total of maybe 3 weeks before going back to TDM.

    I think thier reasoning is that warfare is going to gobble up the assualt gametype and offer other things as well. So, if you like assault than you might like warfare. And if you don't really care for assault, warfare may also be for you because the assault part of it isn't the only part of the warfare gametype.


      When UT 2004 first came it out it was possible to shield jump in assault. They changed this as they thought it exploited the game too much.

      I think assault died in this because of race maps.


        great, a gametype that cuts off the main points of assault and onslaught.
        when you're a good player, you rule any assault map (ok, maybe not the dogfights); when you're a excellent player, it does help a bit in onslaught. you can still get owned by a bunch of newbs.
        i think it's a mode for the $%#@ยง mass.


          Hammer/Rocketlaunching was the end of ut99 assault for me. Some maps ended in 5 seconds, what is the point? useless and it destroyed the game for the majority of players while 1% loved those quickie games. Exploit or not it killed the fun for me. But I loved assault in the beginning e.g. defending in Guardia and monsterkilling with shock combos in that narrow hallways was just pure fun.

          Why did UT2004 assault fail? basically because UT2004 itself failed and the playerbase was too small. Also to many really bad custom maps diluted the playerbase out even more. Generally I think the official 2k4 assault maps were well designed and fun.

          Let's see how much assaulty unreal warfare will be. Personally I would like it more assaulty than onslaughty.


            It's tough to be exact, but I'd have to say the failure of 2k4 assault, after al the hype, has three main reasons:

            First, there were very few maps for the gametype in the box, and of these, a couple were outright un-fun to play. Very few had wide appeal.

            Next, the work-to-payoff ratio for community mappers was far lower than with nay other gametype. Ten times the development work to appeal to one-tenth of the community isn't good math. Even weak DM maps got more playtime than the best assault maps form the community, based on numbers alone.

            Also, the objectives didn't seem like part of an itegrated whole in 2k4. The translocation to the next objective made them all seem like entirely seperate events, and destroyed most of the "running battle" feel of the original. Sort of kills the impression of pressing an attack forward when you blink from one area to the next. The original assault has attackers running forward, and let the defenders take up advanced positions, if they could. Now, the engagements are all decided for the players in advance. Far less immersivce.

            Lastly, the gametype was strangely out of synch with the rest of the gametypes. Maybe it was the heavily-pushed "historical reenactment" angle, but the scenarios just didn't have much replay value. The original assault was far more vague and general, and this made the matches seem like competitions in the present, not some second-rate reenactment of a battle that was important a long time ago.

            All of these things left the assault gametype open to skill-maps and race-maps. the fact that these other game "types" dominated the assault scene, after all the hype of the return, and after all the groaning during the 2k3 years, shows that the game was implemented with serious flaws.


              I think the biggest problem was that it was, apparently, extremely hard to map for Assault. There were a few custom maps that were good but not nearly the volume of DM/TDM maps.

              Don't feel it was the game type was really a problem.

              The new conquest/whatever will be able to cover assault type games as well as ons type.

              I still play assault, fwiw.


                Originally posted by VodooPriest
                Why did UT2004 assault fail? basically because UT2004 itself failed and the playerbase was too small. Also to many really bad custom maps diluted the playerbase out even more. Generally I think the official 2k4 assault maps were well designed and fun.
                Give me proof that UT 2004 failed. It still has a decent player count. Also, according to Epic, half of the players play offline.


                  Originally posted by Scylla
                  Give me proof that UT 2004 failed. It still has a decent player count. Also, according to Epic, half of the players play offline.
                  Not being funny but how do Epic know that?


                    I don't know, maybe they know how many people bought their game?


                      Originally Posted by Hamburger
                      Not being funny but how do Epic know that?
                      Wouldnt they check to see how many of the cd-keys have been used online then take that from the total copys sold.


                        I first liked the idea of assault - it sounded tactical. But whenever I join a Server most of the time both teams split up into 2 groups:

                        The defenders split into a group which will shoot without interuption at the switch, the other group shoots where the enemys come from.
                        The attackers split into a group which jump kamikaze to the switch, trying to protect themselfs with the shield and a other group which is using the fact that the defenders are standing still and firing contiusely at the same position to get loads of frags.

                        That's imho neither tactical nor does it make any fun.
                        Maybe I'm just joining the wrong servers, however it happens with offical and with inoffical maps.

                        I don't know how ut99 was different, didn't play it.

                        Edit: But the Convoy-concept with the driving cars was extrem cool imho


                          I can only speak for myself here:

                          I liked AS-FallenCity best of all, followed by Convoy. They had no vehicles in it and were (IMHO, of course) the most fun maps to play. And I am NOT a vehicle heter. I play ONS with passion and like the vehicles there very much. I just don't think that they add to AS in any way. In fact they ruined a lot of maps.
                          I like it when you have to frag you way forward, step by step. Vehicles don't fit in AS as I like it.


                            I'm not sure where all this "assualt in UT2k4 failed" bs is coming from. That's all I really play any more (see The Official Boobedome Assault server). There's at least two other 20+ player servers that stay pretty packed. Omnipotents has a 32 player that's really busy.

                            Anyway, I think assualt picked up steam in UT2k4 because of the custom maps. Very few stock maps will be played and they usually will clear out a usually packed server. Race maps are actually one of the reasons (I believe) that assault had a revival. Those have since gotten somewhat tiresome and some other creative map makers made some great maps to mix things up. If anyone wants to check them out Omnipotents and The BoobeDome are both fun places to hang out and have plenty of custom content.

                            I'm interested to see how the new gametypes in UT2k7 play out. Hopefully some of the mapping ideas currently in assault can be implimented into UT2k7.


                              I effing loved the Assault Mode in UT2004. I'm not a "pro," though, so maybe my opinion doesn't count. Anyways, if you didn't like AS even a little, maybe the problem is that you all played it with pubs too much and not with people you knew from message boards and such.