Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Onslaught vs Warfare

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

  • replied
    Yeah, the orb adds a new challenge in which I welcome. If you're in a Manta, try just patrolling the perimeter of your node making the orb carrier your primary target. The orb carrier is usually easy to take out with the Manta. Any other targets of oppurtunity you meet should be considered simply secondary.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Warfare is way more fun than the old onslaught the orb definitely makes the game allot funner and more challenging

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Not to hijack this thread, it seems that the admins are on rampage arbitrary closing any threads with bad comments related to UT3. no flames where in some of them. Epic is no more a company i knew

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by ScuzzBuster View Post
    granted, we only played about 40 onlsaught matches before giving it up...I see your issues in the screenies...and noticed some of these playing casually this week. Still I think we can say the jury is still out since we're only a week in...and in fairness...onslaught when we quit compared to where it was a year or so later I can't say.

    The screenies do show issues, but there were similar scenerios in onslaught maps.
    actually no ONS map showed such issues. the only thing remotely similar was crossfires red base turret i believe. this was because it could hit the middle node on that map and could perma ping that node to prevent blue from getting it. this was all fixed when EPic patched the game to where turrets could no longer damage nodes.

    i can post some other stuff later but Onyx Coast is the most glaring example of **** poor mapping on epics part. as well as showing they have a very skewed idea of balance.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    granted, we only played about 40 onlsaught matches before giving it up...I see your issues in the screenies...and noticed some of these playing casually this week. Still I think we can say the jury is still out since we're only a week in...and in fairness...onslaught when we quit compared to where it was a year or so later I can't say.

    The screenies do show issues, but there were similar scenerios in onslaught maps.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by ScuzzBuster View Post
    I just totally disagree. As I said, if I were given the task of fixing what was wrong with Onslaught, the orb system wouldn't have been it, but after playing Onslaught as long as we did, it came very clear that the gametype was so fundamentally flawed that it was borderline unsuitable for competition.

    I'm not sure ANY one can say what will come of Warfare competitively because it takes time for the game type to gel and evolve. I think by saying there are FEWER strategic possibilities in Warfare is by looking at it from an Onslaught standpoint. The game type in my eyes so far just gives you more
    options to achieve your goal -- side objectives and orb runs at least offer stalemate breakers.

    After a few dozen matches in Onslaught, it just became more tiresome than fun. Match after match of the game either lasting 2 minutes or being a 20 minute standoff at one node was really starting to get old. Some Dual primary set ups were okay, but even then they became games of cheese tactics often...consistent ladder strategies of mining the enemy bases with spiders and and spawn camping the enemy base with mantas became commonplace...

    Maybe all new cheese and flaws will become apparent in Warfare, but for now, I think it's a really fun game type.

    Ultimately, my solution to the Onslaught stalemates would have been to have a countdown clock start as soon as you established a link to the enemy core. If you couldn't deal any damage to the enemy core within 120 seconds all the nodes reset to nuetral again. That was just a thought. I was skeptical at first, but I'm seeing much less stalemating on pubs than I did in Onslaught, but I admit, it is early in Warfare's infancy and pub observations are not always true to how organized matches will play. What I'm seeing so far is that orb runs are almost exclusively the only way Onslaught style stalemates are being broken in pubs. I can see the standpoint that orbs could make the lockdown problem worse, but I haven't seen it yet.
    skuzz i am not sure how much competition you did in ONS but as someone who did it for 3 years i have to disagree. the map design was the most massive problem with ONS and it is even worse in Warfare.

    here is an example. these are things i discovered in 5 minutes of playing Onyx Coast...



    Here is the DW super good position on blue (close to spawn):

    http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...nShot00005.jpg
    From that area and the spawn location, you can hit the nodes as such:







    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by 2th View Post
    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.
    I just totally disagree. As I said, if I were given the task of fixing what was wrong with Onslaught, the orb system wouldn't have been it, but after playing Onslaught as long as we did, it came very clear that the gametype was so fundamentally flawed that it was borderline unsuitable for competition.

    I'm not sure ANY one can say what will come of Warfare competitively because it takes time for the game type to gel and evolve. I think by saying there are FEWER strategic possibilities in Warfare is by looking at it from an Onslaught standpoint. The game type in my eyes so far just gives you more options to achieve your goal -- side objectives and orb runs at least offer stalemate breakers.

    After a few dozen matches in Onslaught, it just became more tiresome than fun. Match after match of the game either lasting 2 minutes or being a 20 minute standoff at one node was really starting to get old. Some Dual primary set ups were okay, but even then they became games of cheese tactics often...consistent ladder strategies of mining the enemy bases with spiders and and spawn camping the enemy base with mantas became commonplace...

    Maybe all new cheese and flaws will become apparent in Warfare, but for now, I think it's a really fun game type.

    Ultimately, my solution to the Onslaught stalemates would have been to have a countdown clock start as soon as you established a link to the enemy core. If you couldn't deal any damage to the enemy core within 120 seconds all the nodes reset to nuetral again. That was just a thought. I was skeptical at first, but I'm seeing much less stalemating on pubs than I did in Onslaught, but I admit, it is early in Warfare's infancy and pub observations are not always true to how organized matches will play. What I'm seeing so far is that orb runs are almost exclusively the only way Onslaught style stalemates are being broken in pubs. I can see the standpoint that orbs could make the lockdown problem worse, but I haven't seen it yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Warfare > onslaught any time. Even with very very simple note setups (sinkhole and market district) the gameplay is intense, promotes offensive gamplay (camping ftl!) and is generally **** good!. A few maps seem to lean towards showing off some possibilities (eg tank crossing) rather than being the most playable maps ever however so far i'm absolutely loving it. I also love how much more fun pub matches are now that individual play is rewarded more! (ps. good team still completely owns good individuals ^^)

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Originally posted by bclagge View Post
    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.
    there already is a no orb mutator

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I'm still undecided --they're both quite different from each other and I haven't played WAR enough to get a long-term feel for it. The orb, extra vehicles and side gimmicks can add complexity and depth (yes 2Tth, potentially moreso than ONS ) but also make maps that much more difficult to balance.

    I'll admit I'm a little disappointed that Epic didn't provide a little more variety with map design, as something that built on the brilliance that was Dawn would be very, very welcome across the board. I don't mind the orb, but don't see why it has to be on every map. One could argue that it would confuse the masses, but I think map-specific side objectives do that even more. If Epic found that greater map variety tends to cripple gameplay, then something is fundamentally wrong --ONS seemed to accommodate a HUGE variety of mapping styles well.

    So yah, at this point (expansion packs/additional content Epic?!?!?!!? ), I'd like to see maps with more nodes, dual primaries and simple side-node objectives --like you get a vehicles/s only, the map-specific effects don't work well and aren't drawing in AS players.

    Not to say WAR isn't bad.... but maps could clearly be better with a little conceptual simplification.

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    Xyx: I agree with you. It depends heavily on node setup. Take Torlan for example. I don't know the name of the node setup, but the one that has only the primary nodes in the main line can be turned around from a completely losing position in no time. The Torlan setup with the classic nodes cannot be easily turned around.

    Some clever map makers are going to make us some really cool maps revolving around the orb.

    Lostsoul3: As Xyx told me, there is a no orb mutator. WAR - orb = ONS

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    I didn't like ONS or WAR, but from what I have played, ONS is better than WAR by far. The Orb does far to much and screws up game play. He needs a far longer spawn time after being used (not destroyed, used).

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    My question is where the HELL is domination? That was my favorite game type!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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!!!!

    Leave a comment:


  • replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X