Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What went wrong and the future of assault?

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

  • replied
    If anyone here wants to get into a UT2k4 assault community, check out Dry Lobster. They have been the hub for UT2k4 assault (real assault, not race maps + trials) for a few years now. They hold mixers every now and then, so check 'em out.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    IMHO there is only one thing that's wrong with the assault-gametype :
    it offers no room for newbies to learn how to play the game

    In UT'99 there was no guidance at all. Combined with maps that require more time to load compared to time needed to win a round there was no time to even learn the level.

    UT2k4 tried to fix the naviagition-problems, but it still couldn't fix the ridiculously short time-limits (never mind that map-load-times were even worse).

    IMHO that's why Onslaught succeeded as the 'next-gen assault'.
    There's usually plenty of time to learn the map.
    There's no guess-work needed to learn what needs to be done (making both concept and maps easy to learn).
    There's room for experiment as you can explore alternate routes to the main objectives and still help your team once you get there.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by Argonath
    But what did really go wrong with assault in ut2k4?
    Pretty much everything.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    In both generations of UT it was 2nd in the least played gametypes next to domination.
    I will agree with you TWD. I enjoyed Assault more at lan parties or with friends rather than playing on a public server.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I think you are under the mistaken impression that assault has ever done well. I'm sure there's a lot of people out there that like the gametype, but in terms of sucess in numbers assault has never done well. In both generations of UT it was 2nd in the least played gametypes next to domination.

    I really don't think it's a gametype that works well with arcade style of play. Hence why they tried to rework the gametype.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


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

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X