Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Let's talk about deathmatch

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

    #31
    Originally posted by Nacher View Post

    With the complexity of UT3 maps, I really wonder how long it will take before community mappers get the knowhow of doing stock quality maps both visually and gameplay-wise, unless people who worked with UT3 will contribute to community maps as well. I'm putting my hope into official bonus packs, especially as it was mentioned in one interview that UT3 mappers had several maps / remakes of old UT maps that didn't get polished up in time, but are going to be released in later bonuspacks. I love good remake maps. Could we have DM-Turbine2k7 pretty please?
    Well the trick is that the movement system/physics needs to be studied to know what is possible. Then they'll need to know how well certain things work wrt the movement system/physics. That should take 3 to 4 months easy I'd guess. Then a few weeks for a really dedicated mapper that knows the ropes (and has the time )to put together a first cut (really only a handful out there with solid DM/TDM experience from what I understand). Then many weeks of refinement. If by then it is accepted by the majority, maybe it'll show up on a popular server. Then if it is played and played without major complaints, then maybe...just maybe it'll be added to tourneys and ladders lol. I don't think I am exaggerating either .

    I'm with you, if what you say is true and the movement is more like 99 than 2k* then those older maps should theoretically work. That may just be the saving grace for the maps is remakes of the 99 maps. Actually that is what probably will need to be done. Ok so who's gonna do it ?!?

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by da ghost View Post
      Remember Quake 3 Arena? People were complaining that the maps in that game were gimmicky as well, but then iD software released pro versions of 4 maps with adjusted pickup/weapon locations. Quake 3 turned out to become possibly the most popular PC deathmatch game of all time.

      Even if UT3 fails to ship with maps that work, Epic or the community can tweak the maps and make them work. That's what should have happened with UT2003/4, imo, but didn't for one reason or another.
      I agree with that. Though there were mutators that either a) removed big powerups or b) changed some weapons into other weapons, in some ladders. That was really big in UT in the EU but not so much for UT2.

      Comment


        #33
        Originally posted by depain View Post
        You have got to be kidding me :P

        2K4 was a terrible 1v1 game. With the shield gun, 100/50, the thousands of vials, and the tickle-me-elmo weapon damage, one can absorb 4-5 lg's plus a boat load of shock. Moreover, if a player finally kills whoever had map control 10-15 seconds before the next 100 spawn, he or she would just pull out that dang shield gun and charge or sit on it; I see this happen at least twice in every 1v1... it's ridiculous.

        People seem to cry about the headshot hitboxes in UT99. This is odd, as it is 50x easier to hit the body of an enemy via 2k4. With the super-ease of primary fire and shock combos, I've yet to see a real "cool frag".

        I did, however, semi-enjoy 2k4 tdm. It was much easier to stick with your team due to the massive size maps that were needed to complement the double-dodge. In ut99, sticking with your team "2k4 style" was next to impossible. The closer maps and increased weapon damage reeked of accidental team kills & double kills for the enemy.

        ----------

        The OP made some real good points. I'm hoping the stock maps are tournament worthy ;/ Perhaps it's something we can ask on Tue. during the Epic irc chat on irc.enterthegame.com.
        (I'm actually the OP, as you can see)

        But back to 1on1 topic. I just can't agree on what you said about UT2k4 1on1. Of course it's a matter of opinion. With cool frags I mean stuff like multi-weapon use, air rocket hits, 5 consecutive shock hits in a super-fast situation, biogun frag from miles away etc. UT99 feels somehow clumsy. You rarely use more than one gun per fight, as the weapon changing times etc are kind of slow, and it's harder to pull off stuff like rocket to the feet throwing your enemy into air and then sniping him immediately. 90% of UT99 frags seemed to be just minigun spray, sharpshoot headshots from miles away with sniper or 6 rockets to someone's face. I think fragvideo-style kills need several hits as a combo. UT99 1on1 just feels really slow, mostly due to lacking 1on1 maps. Somehow they are either too small and chaotic or too big and promote slower gameplay. Of course this depends, but I never really liked 1on1 in UT99, but I loved 1on1 in UT2k4, just as I liked it in Quake1.

        And as you most likely know, in UT2k4 your opponent always spawns on the opposite side of the map, when you kill him. So if you kill him around the 100 shield, he just can't get there in time with his shieldgun, and even if he could, he's really an easy target. Shieldgun doesn't help anything in a close combat fight against someone with RL/Flak.

        UT99 1on1 was like "walk 30 seconds in empty corridors, suddenly see your enemy, have a 2 second fight and one of you gets killed, repeat". UT2k4 fights last longer and offer more variety.

        Still, it's only matter of opinion. I just far prefer 2k4 1on1 gameplay. It simply flows thousand times better for me.

        Comment


          #34
          My feelings on the subject are that UT3 should do ok for DM, no worse than UT2004 and probably better.

          There are already a number of community mappers working on UT3 content, so we will see good new maps released probably within weeks after UT3 ships (I'm not including the newbie maps where someone simply drops existing UT3 assets into a BSP cube map ).
          This includes people from UCMP, myself, etc. I have already started work on layout for a few DM maps that go back to the old-school UT99/Q3A type design (I have the UE3 Licensee copy in addition to RB). The maps have very distinct visual styles and themes, with layout and placement that is old-school.

          The big issue won't be the maps as much as it will be the weapons. It is difficult to balance weapons for ONS/Warfare style play and DM style play. There almost has to be two different sets of weapons. And from what I've played in the UE3 Licensee copy plus the UT3 videos I've seen, UT3 has moved from classic DM more towards the console arcade style game play.
          I would actually like to do an old-school DM mod/game type for UT3 that will fix any issues with player control, add new/proper weapons and pickups that are balanced, but getting other talented people interested is virtually impossible.

          Comment


            #35
            Originally posted by DGUnreal View Post
            The big issue won't be the maps as much as it will be the weapons. It is difficult to balance weapons for ONS/Warfare style play and DM style play. There almost has to be two different sets of weapons. And from what I've played in the UE3 Licensee copy plus the UT3 videos I've seen, UT3 has moved from classic DM more towards the console arcade style game play.
            I would actually like to do an old-school DM mod/game type for UT3 that will fix any issues with player control, add new/proper weapons and pickups that are balanced, but getting other talented people interested is virtually impossible.
            That actually surprises me, as originally I read from interviews that UT3 gameplay was designed with DM and CTF perfection in mind. I wonder if they have changed their agenda?

            BTW, from your experience with UE3, will it be harder/more demanding to make stock quality custom maps in UT3 than it was with UT2k4? Or is it the same as before (just lay down BSP and static meshes and you're all set)?

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by DGUnreal View Post
              The big issue won't be the maps as much as it will be the weapons. It is difficult to balance weapons for ONS/Warfare style play and DM style play. There almost has to be two different sets of weapons. And from what I've played in the UE3 Licensee copy plus the UT3 videos I've seen, UT3 has moved from classic DM more towards the console arcade style game play.
              Not really imo. If weapons work as they should for DM they will also work for ONS/WAR. The vehicles creates demand for additional assets, but the core weapons don't need any specific tweaks or replacements. If the guns or the movement feel out of place in a WAR map the problem is in the map layout.

              I don't really get what you mean with "moved from classic DM", from what I've seen from the vids showing PC game play and the comments coming from other players it looks like the situation is the opposite? Sure WAR got new gimmicks but DM seems to be going back to the roots.

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by Nacher View Post
                ... I read from interviews that UT3 gameplay was designed with DM and CTF perfection in mind.

                ... will it be harder/more demanding to make stock quality custom maps in UT3 than it was with UT2k4? ...
                From what I have seen, the changes to UT3 DM (compared to UT2004) are more like minor tweaks in areas such as dodge, bright skins, and a few weapon changes like the impact and stinger (IMHO these changes are still pretty much the same weapon as their UT2004 counterpart, just with a different mesh model).
                The weapon versions I have in my UE3 licensee copy feel and play pretty much the same as their UT2004 counter-parts (link gun, rocket, stinger/minigun, etc.), as do the maps (Deck, etc.).
                However, I have not played the UT3 final beta versions, so I can't comment on what tweaks to UT3 that Epic has made over the past months prior to release.
                Looking at the various recent videos, to me the game play and weapons look like Epic is moving a lot more to console arcade stuff than classic UT. This is perhaps due to the fact that all games are moving onto consoles, and in order to have UT3 function as both a PC and a console version with their limited controller, it will be easier for them to implement the console feature "dumb-down" now than to have two distinct versions of the game.
                Don't get me wrong, I still feel that UT3 will be great. I just don't think that any current DM game on the market matches the feel of the old-school UT99 and Q3A.

                I've worked with UE3 for about 18 months now. I find the new editor to be more time-consuming even when creating basic CSG maps. With more power and features comes more work and more steps. Perhaps it is just that I am still more familiar with UT2004/UEd3.
                Some areas of the new editor/engine are significantly more work than UT2004/UEd3. Materials are more complex. Terrain can take up to 1000x longer to create and edit (really annoying). Good Meshes take considerably longer to make since to get Epic UT3 comparable quality you need both hi-poly and lo-poly versions to get Normal Maps, then most often those Normal Maps must be edited and tweaked, plus you either need expensive software to projection-bake the hi-poly texture or a good artist to photoshop it. etc.
                The capabilities of the new engine are great, however serious mappers are going to require a really fast PC, a lot of extra software to create the custom content, a lot of artistic talent to get good results, and a lot of time to do it.


                Originally posted by Molgan View Post
                Not really imo. If weapons work as they should for DM they will also work for ONS/WAR. ...

                ... Sure WAR got new gimmicks but DM seems to be going back to the roots.
                Sorry, I disagree.
                Onslaught/Warfare (or other team based war game styles such as CS, BattleField, etc.) easily support other/additional weapon styles such as the Spider Mines, Sticky Bombs, AVRiL or Missiles, Painters/Targetters, these sorts of things.
                These do not work in classic DM. And once you essentially pull all of these weapons out of a DM map, there often isn't much remaining for variety: handgun, shotgun, machinegun, rockets, sniper. And since most DM maps are usually a smaller footprint than Ons/Warfare, these weapons are often too "spammy". The UT2004 Flak is a good example, a standard shotgun would be better suited for classic DM.
                IMHO from what I have played on UE3 and what I have seen for videos, UT3 will feel and play like UT2004 with minor tweaks and better graphics and effects. Perhaps I'm wrong, we'll see when the final version ships.

                I would not say that changes to dodge and swapping in the Stinger and Dual-Enforcers is going back to the roots. The Stinger feels identical to the Minigun, so the change is only cosmetic. UT2004 never captured the player controller feel of UT99 or Q3A, and changed the weapons/projectiles, and UT3 feels like a tweaked UT2004.

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by DGUnreal View Post
                  Sorry, I disagree.
                  Then I agree.. to disagree. ^^

                  Calling the changes of the dodge, bright skins and swapping shield gun for the impact hammer minor tweaks is not right. The removal of the dodge jump changes not just the game play, it also changes the way maps are scaled and built. Lets say we got the horrible idea to port a 2k4 map into UT3, to make it play as it's supposed to we have to scale it down to about 75% of the original size in X and Y. This have quite an impact on how the game behave and feel and how we perceive player/weapon models and speed. Saying that they are moving away from classic DM when they are moving closer to UT99 in most important aspects is really strange.
                  Originally posted by DGUnreal View Post
                  These do not work in classic DM. And once you essentially pull all of these weapons out of a DM map, there often isn't much remaining for variety: handgun, shotgun, machinegun, rockets, sniper. And since most DM maps are usually a smaller footprint than Ons/Warfare, these weapons are often too "spammy". The UT2004 Flak is a good example, a standard shotgun would be better suited for classic DM.
                  Ehm.. What do you mean with classic DM? The weapons used in UT DM is the most balanced and varied you can find in a old school shooter like UT always have been. The core weapons is what makes the game great and a shot gun would be totally out of place.

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by depain View Post
                    You have got to be kidding me :P

                    2K4 was a terrible 1v1 game. With the shield gun, 100/50, the thousands of vials, and the tickle-me-elmo weapon damage, one can absorb 4-5 lg's plus a boat load of shock. Moreover, if a player finally kills whoever had map control 10-15 seconds before the next 100 spawn, he or she would just pull out that dang shield gun and charge or sit on it; I see this happen at least twice in every 1v1... it's ridiculous.

                    People seem to cry about the headshot hitboxes in UT99. This is odd, as it is 50x easier to hit the body of an enemy via 2k4. With the super-ease of primary fire and shock combos, I've yet to see a real "cool frag".

                    I did, however, semi-enjoy 2k4 tdm. It was much easier to stick with your team due to the massive size maps that were needed to complement the double-dodge. In ut99, sticking with your team "2k4 style" was next to impossible. The closer maps and increased weapon damage reeked of accidental team kills & double kills for the enemy.

                    ----------

                    The OP made some real good points. I'm hoping the stock maps are tournament worthy ;/ Perhaps it's something we can ask on Tue. during the Epic irc chat on irc.enterthegame.com.


                    You are so right about the 1v1, the map control is just silly imo, to hard to get control back when 2 equally skilled players meet head on , the game is decided in the first minute. (my experience)

                    Comment


                      #40
                      I find it ridiculous that the Map Control is so important in 1v1 competition in the first place.

                      I have a lot of 1v1 competitions with my friends, and we all think playing under "normal" rules makes for some absolutely ugly matches. The best are those where we remove powerups except weapons and ammo...

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Molgan View Post
                        Then I agree.. to disagree. ^^
                        That's ok.
                        Disagreements are what make life fun and keeps these boards going.


                        Originally posted by Molgan View Post
                        Calling the changes of the dodge, bright skins and swapping shield gun for the impact hammer minor tweaks is not right.
                        If the player controller and camera scale remains the same, and all other weapons remain the same (Stinger=Minigun), then those remaining changes mentioned are simply IMHO minor tweaks.

                        Bright Skins are already a toggle-option in UT2004 so that can be discarded.
                        The Shield Gun and Impact Hammer function relatively similar, so that weapon change is minor, plus how many people actually use that weapon often in a match? Not many, it wouldn't be my first weapon of choice in a match.
                        Dodge is the only real change that can be accepted as a game play modification.

                        Play UT99 or even better Q3A for a while, then go back to UT2004.
                        The player controller and camera scale along with the "solidity" of movement and weapons are noticeably different. Removing Dodge won't give you that.


                        Originally posted by Molgan View Post
                        The removal of the dodge jump changes not just the game play, it also changes the way maps are scaled and built.
                        I agree it does change game play to a certain amount. But I don't think as much as you believe.

                        I disagree (again) on the second point.
                        The extra-large UT2004 map scale is due to the FOV and camera, and more to handle the double-jump (dodge-jump) bunny hopping and the quad-jump mutator if used.
                        Hallways usually must be wide enough for multiple players to pass by each other anyway, not to mention the fact that the FOV/camera looks incorrect if a room/hall is real-world scaled, so dodges are only an annoyance when trying to hit someone, they have little to do with the actual scale of the map.
                        More people, especially newbies, bunny-hop than dodge.
                        And ask an experienced mapper when starting out with your own mapping and they will tell you to scale up the map for double-jumping, not for dodging.


                        Originally posted by Molgan View Post
                        Lets say we got the horrible idea to port a 2k4 map into UT3, to make it play as it's supposed to we have to scale it down to about 75% of the original size in X and Y. This have quite an impact on how the game behave and feel and how we perceive player/weapon models and speed.
                        Between UT2004 and UT3, the player size is the same, the map scale is almost the same. Comparing Deck in my UE3 copy and UT2004, the UE3 version is 85% the size of the UT2004 version.
                        This change in scale will help with the third-person view looking so off.

                        But stating that map scale will impact game behaviour as relating to the point in game feel that I am referring to, is IMHO incorrect. If that were the case, then the mini-me bedroom maps would not play like UT2004 when in fact they still do.
                        The differences between UT99/Q3A and UT2004 are more in player controller, camera, and weapons. Not map scale.

                        As mentioned, I have yet to play the release UT3, so any additional tweaks that they have done to the game play may bring back more of the old style.
                        But if anything that I have had hands-on with so far is an indication, I don't think it will be, and simply removing the double-tap dodge won't bring back the old style.
                        UT2004 from the start has a different feel from UT99 and Q3A. UE3 has the same feel (to me) as UT2004. DM-Deck feels and plays virtually the same but with nicer graphics.

                        Don't misunderstand me, I'm still a UT fan, and UT3 will be great.

                        Originally posted by Molgan View Post
                        a shot gun would be totally out of place.
                        Tell that to Q3 fans.
                        It doesn't have to be a real old-time double-barrel shotgun, as that doesn't fit into the Unreal Universe. An updated futuristic type would work. The Flak has too wide a dispersion and is too spammy for old school DM as its shrapnel bounces too much. I've gotten kills with it that I didn't even intend for as its spam flew around map corners and hit players I couldn't even see.


                        Just my opinion.
                        No flames or arguments meant.
                        We'll have to wait for UT3 to see for sure.

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Interesting posts in here. Shows how differently a lot of people think about proper 1on1, classic DM or just the "feel" of the game. In my experience, vast majority of people considering UT99 having top notch gameplay/movement/map design/weapon balance for 1on1 are the ones, who started their online 3d shooter career with UT99. It was the game they grow with, and have trouble adapting to different gameplay or even giving it a chance. This was also apparent when UT99 came out, and there were lots of oldschool Unreal online players. They were absolutely convinced that TDM should be played with weaponstay on and map control/powerups were bad for TDM and made it require less skill. With time, part of these players adapted to more tactical TDM and others just quit. Of course not all UT99 fans are like that, but most of them prefer some kind of gameplay just because it's what they have used to.

                          I have played online since first test version of Quake 1 (and countless 1on1s in Doom1/2, Duke Nukem 3d etc before that), and have played at least Q1, Q2, Q3, UT99, UT2k3, UT2k4, AQ2, CS, CSS in pretty good clans. I'm not saying it makes my opinions any better than someone else's, but it does give me a lot of perspective on what things each game did right and what they didn't. I chose UT99 over Q3 because UT just had so much more depth in it. Q3 was oversimplification to the max. However, Q3 felt more solid than UT did. It had a better movement feel and more solid netcode etc. It also worked better for 1on1, but felt really too arcade and simple for TDM. Still, Quakeworld had the best movement to date IMO. Hard to master, but good players could navigate through the map _really_ quickly, and it just speeded the game up. Actually Q3 pro mod movement was copied almost straight from QW, while original Q3 movement was mostly the same as Q2. Also the weapons and powerups were super strong, which made the map control really strong. It was really newbie-unfriendly, but very rewarding for the more devoted players as well. In my opinion, total lost of map control should drive the losing player/team into a hard situation. If you stupidly die and leave all the items and weapons open for your opponnent, you deserve to get spawnraped a lot until you find a way to even things up. I think UT2k4 had perfect balance for this in 1on1. Map control was strong, but still always possible to win back, if you were smarter than your opponent. Not as merciless as QW, but not too light either. 1on1 without powerful map control or tactics is just plain boring to me. Like playing rocket arena. Fun for a while, but offers absolutely no depth. In ut2k4 1on1, I often won players who actually were better players (read : had a better accuracy %) than me, because they were not playing smart enough. Classic DM is meant to be tactical. It has always been that since the days of Doom.

                          If UT3 plays like a hotrodder UT2k4, I'm going to be very happy with it. In UT2k4 the only thing I missed from UT99 were those more powerful guns and closer combat. If UT3 has those, as it's meant to be, then we're in for a treat. UT99 weapon power with UT2k4 movement and feel sounds like the perfect combination to me.

                          Edit : About flak vs shotgun. I think flak just has more depth and ways of use than pure hitscan shotgun. Weapons that don't need super hitscan accuracy if you can predict enemy movement well enough have always been part of Unreal franchise multiplayer imo. Sounds to me like minigun --> stinger is making this feature even more prominent.

                          UT99 movement was "solid" in a way, but also really simple. It felt like moving on rails. Nothing new to be learned after the first hour of play, opposed to UT2k4, where it took a long time to learn how to effectively use wall dodge, angled surfaces etc. I think UT99 would have been a lot better 1on1 game, if the movement would have ha dmore trickjumps and ways of navigating the map faster. It just felt too slow and basic. Also the maps that were used for 1on1 were fairly large and not really well connected. They had a lot of boring long corridors and all in all spread to a too large area. That works great for TDM, where you don't have to control the whole map by yourself, but running around some map like Liandri or Deck just takes far too long IMO.

                          Last, but not least. You should never criticize any game for it's gameplay before you have mastered that game. I didn't like UT2kx feel either at first, but once I really learned how to play it, there was no going back.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Just a few thoughts on this post...there are distinct differences between people playing on an unorganized pub level and those that play in organized competetive tournaments/ladders/etc and I want to point this out because the philosophy of the map designer will certainly impact whoever plays the map.

                            Originally posted by DGUnreal View Post
                            ......
                            >Bright Skins are already a toggle-option in UT2004 so that can be discarded.

                            Not unless everyone agrees 100% one way or the other. This is one of the main reasons so many arguments occur over this one point alone. Having models already built into the game (that are roughly equivalent in terms of visibility) that require NO aftermarket tweaks is one of the HUGE points of contention that many hope is a fixed problem on release.

                            >The Shield Gun and Impact Hammer function relatively similar, so that weapon change is minor, plus how many people actually use that weapon often in a match? Not many, it wouldn't be my first weapon of choice in a match.

                            In competetion the shield secondary function created a lot of, well let's just say negative comments. The primary is almost never used in competition save for a last resort. Having the impact hammer will make a differece, I'd agree probably a rather small one, but a difference nonetheless.

                            >Dodge is the only real change that can be accepted as a game play modification.I agree it does change game play to a certain amount. But I don't think as much as you believe.

                            I believe dodge jump removal is going to have a HUGE impact on game play. In fact as (you are) a mapper I don't see how you feel this won't impact the game in a very significant way. You can traverse much greater distances in a shorter amount of time via dodge-jump. Surely that has to come into play in map design?

                            >I disagree (again) on the second point.
                            The extra-large UT2004 map scale is due to the FOV and camera, and more to handle the double-jump (dodge-jump) bunny hopping and the quad-jump mutator if used.
                            Hallways usually must be wide enough for multiple players to pass by each other anyway, not to mention the fact that the FOV/camera looks incorrect if a room/hall is real-world scaled, so dodges are only an annoyance when trying to hit someone, they have little to do with the actual scale of the map.
                            More people, especially newbies, bunny-hop than dodge.
                            And ask an experienced mapper when starting out with your own mapping and they will tell you to scale up the map for double-jumping, not for dodging.

                            I'd have to argue that double-jump is a rather rare occurence in DM/TDM reserved mainly for adding elevation for a HS shot, and on the other end used very little during in-fighting, and that is mostly to jump above rox. But it is never used against a player using HS. So to begin design of a map with this at the forefront of the map creation is a little strange imo. That is one of the biggest undersights imho with 2k4 was that most of the maps revolved around controlling HS weapons. The movement of the game has a huge impact on this, especially when a player makes the mistake of using things like double jump or dodge jump against a dead aim HS player. Again (wrt quad mutator and bunny hop) this seems the wrong basis in terms of design philosophy imho.

                            >As mentioned, I have yet to play the release UT3, so any additional tweaks that they have done to the game play may bring back more of the old style.
                            But if anything that I have had hands-on with so far is an indication, I don't think it will be, and simply removing the double-tap dodge won't bring back the old style.

                            Agreed, and most likely it will have a menage of the earlier and later year feel(s). At least this is what I have gleaned from all the information available.


                            >Just my opinion.
                            No flames or arguments meant.
                            We'll have to wait for UT3 to see for sure.

                            Agreed.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by DGUnreal View Post
                              Comparing Deck in my UE3 copy and UT2004, the UE3 version is 85% the size of the UT2004 version.
                              Sweet, that makes it even tighter then the UT99 version. Thx for info. =)
                              Originally posted by DGUnreal View Post
                              We'll have to wait for UT3 to see for sure.
                              Can't wait. :P

                              Originally posted by Nacher View Post
                              If UT3 has those, as it's meant to be, then we're in for a treat. UT99 weapon power with UT2k4 movement and feel sounds like the perfect combination to me....

                              ...UT99 movement was "solid" in a way, but also really simple. It felt like moving on rails. Nothing new to be learned after the first hour of play, opposed to UT2k4, where it took a long time to learn how to effectively use wall dodge, angled surfaces etc. I think UT99 would have been a lot better 1on1 game, if the movement would have ha dmore trickjumps and ways of navigating the map faster.
                              Agreed, and from what we have seen UT3 is close to what you are talking about. It's more close quarter with the dodge jump removed, but you can still dodge, wall dodge, ramp dodge, double jump and lift jump around like in 2k4. Part from the wall dodge and double jump most of this was already in UT99, but the maps didn't make much use of it, but looking at it from a 2k4 perspective there is only one element in the movement system that is missing in UT3. If that element feels to hard to live without it might be proof that the feature was a bit too dominant. ^^

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Oh plus we need more maps where the map is based on numbers of players. I.e. 1v1, 2v2 and 4v4. No need for anything else for TDM imo. Unless its a pub then who cares what size it was made for anyways (albatross with 24 peeps anyone? ).

                                I would love to see more mappers design thier maps strictly with competition in mind. (I've personally always wanted to take the time and learn, just never have ).

                                I do appreciate those that do these things for the community, but so many times you see maps just fall off into oblivion. The best competetive maps are the ones that go down in history (as much as is possible with a video game ) because they get played so darned much.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X