Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Choked up Warfare

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

    Choked up Warfare

    "Only one conduit is ever in contest, so most of the time most of the people will be fighting around that location"
    (from the PC zone interview)

    Every decent ONS map has zero choke points. Going after side objectives are all well and good, but if there's no way to flank a front line of the opponent's attack, a map gets boring very quickly.

    edit - whoops - I missed that Gunslinger made this very point in the article's thread. But this is important and imho deserves a thread.

    #2
    I concur 100% with your point. There are few if any "good" maps, imo, that have choke points. It kills dynamic play. I think it is much more likely that the guy writing the article almost certainly does not know what he is talking about.

    /presses hands together and looks skyward

    Comment


      #3
      What will be the point of huge conquest maps if everybody is going to fight at one location?

      Chokenodes on ONS are only good if you like to play 1on1 ONS...well, maybe 3on3 also, at most.

      Comment


        #4
        Originally posted by rhiridflaidd View Post
        "Only one conduit is ever in contest, so most of the time most of the people will be fighting around that location"
        Sounds worse and worse.

        EDIT:
        Wouldn't it be time to release some stuff that makes the game look good? All we get is inofficial stuff from shaky cams showing inexperienced players on a controller that makes the game look bad... ...and then we hear that bombing-run in UT3 has vehicles and is called Warfare... ...this neither pleases teh BR fans nor most of the ONS fans.

        Comment


          #5
          "Only one conduit is ever in contest, so most of the time most of the people will be fighting around that location"
          And this one location may be as big as assault map

          Comment


            #6
            I doubt it will be a choke point per say, but it sounds more like there will be less confusion on where you need to be. The two big problems I saw in Onslaught was firstly the snowball effect, and secondly people never going to where they should. That combined with how easy it was to destroy vehicles, or run people over, made the battles far less epic than they should have been.

            Comment


              #7
              I'd say they need to go back to the drawing board with Warfare, but not if it means delaying the game another 6 months. And it's impossible to truly judge it until we've played it... but it does sound like it has a lot of the same weaknesses ONS had. Once people know the game inside out, we're gonna see the same stacking of experienced players on one team immediately cutting off all the opponents resources, leaving them without a prayer of winning about 30-60 seconds into a match. Most likely anyway.

              Comment


                #8
                You are all making too much of a simple statement in an article.

                They said the exact same thing about ONS... and for the most part (using the link editor) it's all good.

                Comment


                  #9
                  From my experience, choke points are only fun if you're competing against total n00bs or low-skilled bots, allowing you to rack up one Monster Kill after another. Otherwise they drive you completely bat**** (memories from horrid and woeful matches in ONS-Frostbite arise). Let's hope ne_skaju is right.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I wouldn't be talking about one quote from an article.. Epic has certainly gone into enough depth about Warfare gameplay on more than one occasion, that we can get somewhat of a decent idea of how it will play out.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Certainly it wouldn't be the first time that journalists made a honest mistake.

                      And we know from the first videos that Torlan had a decent node setup.

                      But saying that there is a single conduit to force play into an area is a pretty big statement.

                      So I hope that they haven't changed tack.

                      If there is a deliberate change to force a single battlefront I can think, of 3 reasons why (in reverse oreder of likelyhood)

                      -To be better suited to lower playercounts. (eek if this is true)
                      -To make warfare less confusing for new players
                      -To allow the mapping of scenery changes from necris to axon as the front line moves.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Honest Journalist mistake.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Bersy View Post
                          Once people know the game inside out, we're gonna see the same stacking of experienced players on one team immediately cutting off all the opponents resources, leaving them without a prayer of winning about 30-60 seconds into a match. Most likely anyway.
                          That's not one of ONS's weaknesses.
                          I honestly can't think up a gametype that wouldn't have this problem.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I don't think Epic is sitting around testing something that's not fun without fixing it.

                            Relax.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Entropy View Post
                              Honest Journalist mistake.
                              Thanks.

                              Of course, we'd still like to know something more about WAR!?

                              Please!?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X