Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Onslaught vs Warfare

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

    Onslaught vs Warfare

    Now that i have played Warfare mode, I vote Onsalught. the Orbs, IMO, should have been a mutator.

    #2
    I'm sure there will be a no-orb mutator.

    The orb is a good thing. A losing team can now make impressive comebacks in no time at all.

    Comment


      #3
      I prefer WAR to ONS any day. The rounds are WAY longer overall and require a good deal more strategy.

      Comment


        #4
        Warfare is a bit overly complex compared to Onslaught, but it at least addresses Onslaught's biggest downfall as a gametype...once you get down to your prime node only in Onslaught the game it was almost impossible to overcome. I played thousands of pub and ladder onslaught matches and with maybe a handful of exceptions had I ever seen team come back from being down to the prime node only.

        What made it worse was that what would inevitebly happen is the losing team would have to expend all of their resources to defend that Prime node, so basically, if the nodes fell quickly down to prime, you would have basically the majority of a 20 minute game all being fought at one node

        ...since the losing team would dedicate their efforts on that node it became very difficult for the winning team to take it long enough to destroy the core...so many Onslaught matches became these massive spammy battles all taking place in one small area of the huge Onslaught maps.

        While the Orb system isn't really in my opinion the BEST way to alleviate this issue, it seems to work rather well, I just hope it doesn't add to the confusion for new players.

        On the flip side of the coin, I do have this to say about WARFARE in general:

        --The Warefare maps in UT3 are almost all outsanding...almost all of them are better than all or most of the Onslaught maps in 2k4. They are designed well and overall, a great deal of fun. I would have to say that Warfare so far seems quite a bit more fun than Onslaugt...and I think a lot of that is due to outstanding map design.
        --The addition of the Orb, and side objectives and resource nodes really adds to the gameplay
        --The Hoverboard alone makes Warefare light years ahead of Onslaught (as well makes vCTF a viable and fun gametype in UT3, that never really gelled in UT2k4).
        --The strategic possibilities in Warfare in organized pugs and matches seems off the chart in a GOOD way. It's going to be MUCH more of a chess match than Onslaught was.

        Love the game.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by bclagge View Post
          I'm sure there will be a no-orb mutator.
          There is a NoOrb mutator. Ships with the game.

          Originally posted by bclagge View Post
          The orb is a good thing. A losing team can now make impressive comebacks in no time at all.
          A winning team can also use it to lock the map down. It heavily depends on the map. Take Torlan... once you gain control of the map you have 8(!) Mantas and 2 Goliaths to instakill whoever steps outside of his base. Or Downtown, where you can lock the primary with the orb while hiding behind some concrete, spamming rocket nades at the entrances.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Xyx View Post
            A winning team can also use it to lock the map down. It heavily depends on the map. Take Torlan... once you gain control of the map you have 8(!) Mantas and 2 Goliaths to instakill whoever steps outside of his base.
            Torlan could be (and was regularly) locked down in 2k4 the same way without orbs.

            Actually now if someone manage to sneak through the siege and manage to take one of the standalone node back, then the rest of the team can respawn from there to avoid the blockade.
            Not exactly easy to pull off but you do have additional options, in 2k4 the only possibility for a comeback was exclusively by attacking the primary node.

            Or Downtown, where you can lock the primary with the orb while hiding behind some concrete, spamming rocket nades at the entrances.
            But then attacking the primary is not your only alternative. You can start with taking the tank node, then use the tank to take primary back.

            Comment


              #7
              I think the no-orb mutator should have a halfway shouse setting - as posted before - that a orb should destroy a full health enemy node, or fully build an uncaptured node. And if the enemy node is half built it would become half built for your team. The orbs would need to be a different colour to standard orbs so as not to confuse new players.

              As things stand the game can change too quickly. For the necris especially if the scavenger quickly builds the primary node and an orb carrier towed by a fast vehichle taking the secondary node, then the game is totally overturned instantly, making re-organising defences impossible.

              For complicated node setups, as we are used to in ONS, with the orb, making cutoffs, and changing the flow of the game will be really easy. All you need is 2 good players and one with half a brain willing to have his orb towed by a good pilot.

              And the other point is that those who carry orb passangers should get a points reward. vCTF had a manta assist mutator- so it must be codeable.

              Comment


                #8
                i felt that with ONS, the default node setup on maps like torlan, artic stronghold and severence meant that it was diffucult to turn a game around if you were on the loosing team and the enemy had your prime - especially as from the prime node there was 2 or 3 or more nodes that you'd need to destroy to get back control....

                but on maps like dria and dawn, which had 2 prime nodes and 2 potential paths to the enemy core....it was a lot easier to take the enemy by surprise and regain the advantage....in fact both teams could be attacking the cores at the same time.

                so i think it all boils down to the node setup....and (sometimes) i preferred maps with 2 prime nodes, or even maps like primevil and frostbite where the majority of the action was focused on a single central node.

                but at least now, with the orb, maps with only 1 prime can be quickly turned around. but at the same time, they can also be over even quicker if the winning team is making good use of their own orb and has captured and is defending the enemies prime well

                Comment


                  #9
                  I initially thought that the orb could not be taken on a hoverboard, and would only spawn in the base. It was pretty much advertised as something that would allow the down team to make a comeback. While that is indeed somewhat true (against bots...a coordinated team will leave some defense at vulnerable nodes), the fast transportation of that thing means that the up team will have the same means to reclaim their sudden loss of a node. I even saw that happen in a bot match: they came and claimed my node...but our node was simply nearby, so I immediately took it back. Net result: nothing.

                  ...but in competitive games, I foresee even more racing going on than in traditional onslaught. And a few missed seconds because of bad spawnpoints will mean even more this time around.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Lulzy View Post
                    Torlan could be (and was regularly) locked down in 2k4 the same way without orbs.
                    My point. The orb was supposed to break the stalemate, but it also helps reinforce it.

                    It's a map specific problem, though. Dusk has two ways to the core, PowerSurge and Floodgate have the side objective and TankCrossing, MarketDistrict and Sinkhole only have one node between the cores anyway. The other maps, however, have **** flow, and that includes their alternative setups. The vehicle-heavy standalone nodes help, but not every map has them.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      For me ONS with good node setups is far better than WAR. The latter is too chaotic on Pubs and it is too complex for a lot (which might also be the reason for the chaotic gameplay).

                      The orb is much too powerful IMHO and the gameplay depends on who gets it. ONS was about building a line from core to core and you had 1 or (even better: ) 2 or more frontlines you have to go at. Now it is randomly running around with/without orbs.

                      ONS also had much better vehicles.

                      Just my opinion, of course.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        WAR > ONS, imo. And I'm really surprised that I like so much, as I've always been very sceptical.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          I am pretty sure warefare will prove to be far better than ONS. I am sur the orbs bring 1000 new tactics to win a match or come back from desperate situations.

                          As previously said, ONS games in ladder games were played in 2 minutes. The team that missed its start could almost never come back. I guess it will be different now with orbs in base and those mobile turrets, far more effective.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by [ST2]Unborn View Post
                            I am pretty sure warefare will prove to be far better than ONS. I am sur the orbs bring 1000 new tactics to win a match or come back from desperate situations.

                            As previously said, ONS games in ladder games were played in 2 minutes. The team that missed its start could almost never come back. I guess it will be different now with orbs in base and those mobile turrets, far more effective.
                            Maybe on maps like Torlan or Crossfire. If your team lost in 2 minutes on Dawn it's because you were totally outgunned in terms of skill.

                            The failures of ONS were mostly related to map design, specifically node layouts. Torlan, Crossfire, Severance, Artic Stronghold, Red Planet. All single node primaries where it was almost impossible to comeback on. Now lets look at prime and frostbite. Prime was horrible, the best example I heard of that map. It's a shooting gallery with the tank as a prize. Not a good map. Frost, on the other hand, had the building in the middle where you ended up with lots of back and forth play.

                            The cream of the crop was Dawn. Dual primaries and a rock, paper, scissors type approach between the vehicles and the infantry. Everything just worked in that map.

                            with War its more of what made ONS bad, the difference, there are gimmicks with a touch of AS type objectives tossed in.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by ScuzzBuster View Post
                              Warfare is a bit overly complex compared to Onslaught, but it at least addresses Onslaught's biggest downfall as a gametype...once you get down to your prime node only in Onslaught the game it was almost impossible to overcome. I played thousands of pub and ladder onslaught matches and with maybe a handful of exceptions had I ever seen team come back from being down to the prime node only.

                              What made it worse was that what would inevitebly happen is the losing team would have to expend all of their resources to defend that Prime node, so basically, if the nodes fell quickly down to prime, you would have basically the majority of a 20 minute game all being fought at one node

                              ...since the losing team would dedicate their efforts on that node it became very difficult for the winning team to take it long enough to destroy the core...so many Onslaught matches became these massive spammy battles all taking place in one small area of the huge Onslaught maps.

                              While the Orb system isn't really in my opinion the BEST way to alleviate this issue, it seems to work rather well, I just hope it doesn't add to the confusion for new players.

                              On the flip side of the coin, I do have this to say about WARFARE in general:

                              --The Warefare maps in UT3 are almost all outsanding...almost all of them are better than all or most of the Onslaught maps in 2k4. They are designed well and overall, a great deal of fun. I would have to say that Warfare so far seems quite a bit more fun than Onslaugt...and I think a lot of that is due to outstanding map design.
                              --The addition of the Orb, and side objectives and resource nodes really adds to the gameplay
                              --The Hoverboard alone makes Warefare light years ahead of Onslaught (as well makes vCTF a viable and fun gametype in UT3, that never really gelled in UT2k4).
                              --The strategic possibilities in Warfare in organized pugs and matches seems off the chart in a GOOD way. It's going to be MUCH more of a chess match than Onslaught was.

                              Love the game.
                              how you can say that warfare has more strategies than ONS and that you played in competition in the same post is mind boggling. the warfare maps are pretty but also pretty awful in terms of strategy. they are all , but 1 really, 1-1 and 1-1-1 node setups. 100% linear. go to the enemy prime or go to the middle. there is no strategic depth at all.

                              as such the only way to salvage Warfare will be to add dual primaries or 2-2-2 or 1-2-2-1 or other node setups to maps or make maps with such node setups. 1-1 and 1-1-1 are maps that promote no mental activity.

                              Originally posted by fuegerstef View Post
                              For me ONS with good node setups is far better than WAR. The latter is too chaotic on Pubs and it is too complex for a lot (which might also be the reason for the chaotic gameplay).

                              The orb is much too powerful IMHO and the gameplay depends on who gets it. ONS was about building a line from core to core and you had 1 or (even better: ) 2 or more frontlines you have to go at. Now it is randomly running around with/without orbs.

                              ONS also had much better vehicles.

                              Just my opinion, of course.
                              +1 to feug!!!!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X