Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

I hate vehicle maps :(

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

    #16
    Originally posted by H3i53nb3rg View Post
    Don't say that Warfare is the worst mode as if it's a fact when your assertion is merely an opinion. The fact that a fairly large proportion of players who still play UT3 online are on Warfare attests to that.

    Besides, I just can't see how war of attrition shock rifle battles actually resemble anything that you could call 'fast paced.' Hide and seek, slow and boring laser show battles are what the game degenerates to if you remove vehicles because in the game's current current state, on open maps the spam weapons are next to useless.
    ...just as most people in UT2004 played Onslaught.. still eventually even then the server selection trickled down to nearly zero non demo maps a long time ago. UT3 doesn't have the demo server issue but what it does have in Warfare is gameplay that doesn't live up to what was promised. The few ways that it has improved are outweighed by the ways in which it has worsened. DM, TDM and CTF in UT3 have actually improved in some ways, but those gametypes don't carry this series anymore unfortunately. I am betting a hardcore UT DM shooter would actually sell well if it focused primarily on DM and made interesting improvements to it.. UT was one of the games that made the genre and now people feel like it is trying to become something it isn't by tacking on vehicular games.. I can understand this even though I enjoy ONS and Assault in 2k4.. How does a vehicle fit into a tournament setting, that's a question that has not been answered, in fact they tried to make it fit by changing the tournament somehow into a war. So that begs the question, is it UT anymore, or is it something else? And if it is something else, can you blame longtime fans of Unreal Tournament for calling a sloppily executed vehicle mode the worst one?

    Comment


      #17
      if all else fails, hello warfare

      Comment


        #18
        hello warfare indeed

        Comment


          #19
          Originally posted by Bersy View Post
          ...just as most people in UT2004 played Onslaught.. still eventually even then the server selection trickled down to nearly zero non demo maps a long time ago. UT3 doesn't have the demo server issue but what it does have in Warfare is gameplay that doesn't live up to what was promised. The few ways that it has improved are outweighed by the ways in which it has worsened. DM, TDM and CTF in UT3 have actually improved in some ways, but those gametypes don't carry this series anymore unfortunately. I am betting a hardcore UT DM shooter would actually sell well if it focused primarily on DM and made interesting improvements to it.. UT was one of the games that made the genre and now people feel like it is trying to become something it isn't by tacking on vehicular games.. I can understand this even though I enjoy ONS and Assault in 2k4.. How does a vehicle fit into a tournament setting, that's a question that has not been answered, in fact they tried to make it fit by changing the tournament somehow into a war. So that begs the question, is it UT anymore, or is it something else? And if it is something else, can you blame longtime fans of Unreal Tournament for calling a sloppily executed vehicle mode the worst one?
          I'm not debating his opinion that Warfare is the worst gametype. But like I said before, the problem is that he's stating his opinion as if it is fact (i.e. that his opinion is shared by everyone). Many people prefer Warfare over the other gametypes and certainly do not view it as the worst one.

          The name of the game is just that, a name. It doesn't necessarily need to be a completely accurate description of what the game involves. Games change over time, it happens. The reason the the tournament suffix is kept is to indicate that the game is a follow up (regardless of the level of similarity with the previous game in the series) to a game in the UT series. Besides, UT99 is what defined the tournament series. The horrendous nerfing of spam weapons in ut2k3 already turned UT into another game. So the argument that the differences between UT3 and ut2k4 changed the tournament series into something completely different is a rather meaningless assertion.

          Comment


            #20
            Originally posted by H3i53nb3rg View Post
            I'm not debating his opinion that Warfare is the worst gametype. But like I said before, the problem is that he's stating his opinion as if it is fact (i.e. that his opinion is shared by everyone). Many people prefer Warfare over the other gametypes and certainly do not view it as the worst one.

            The name of the game is just that, a name. It doesn't necessarily need to be a completely accurate description of what the game involves. Games change over time, it happens. The reason the the tournament suffix is kept is to indicate that the game is a follow up (regardless of the level of similarity with the previous game in the series) to a game in the UT series. Besides, UT99 is what defined the tournament series. The horrendous nerfing of spam weapons in ut2k3 already turned UT into another game. So the argument that the differences between UT3 and u2k4 changed the tournament series into something completely different is a rather meaningless assertion.
            gg right there

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Bersy View Post
              How does a vehicle fit into a tournament setting, that's a question that has not been answered, in fact they tried to make it fit by changing the tournament somehow into a war. So that begs the question, is it UT anymore, or is it something else?
              It's not UT, or... rather it's what UT has become. It's where the new players flock to, just like any other game out there begging to sell to the hopeless noobs.

              Games that require skill are not welcome anymore. People are lazy and give up or simply accuse others of cheating if they can't kill them. This is where the vehicle gametypes fill in, the spammy fun where anyone can get a kill. Nearly all recent games (such as CoD4) are headed this way - you can get good at it, but even the most skilled of players will die to a noob once in ahwile. This is what sells, and unfortunately...

              Noob-friendly is where its at.

              Comment


                #22
                If it weren't for the vehicles, UT2004 and UT3 would just be awkward rehashes of UT99 (just like UT2003 was) and would be completely unable to compete with other top scifi shooters. The variety the game offers has increased exponentially with the introduction of vehicles.

                I agree with part of the perceived problem, though; vehicle maps have lots of boring empty space in 'em. That's not the vehicles' fault. Vehicles don't need that much space (just look at what some people do with the tank in Downtown...). The problem is the distance between nodes and flags. The hoverboard somewhat alleviates the problem but does not solve it.

                Originally posted by Bersy View Post
                How does a vehicle fit into a tournament setting
                Same way as a translocator, a pair of jump boots or a shock rifle fit into a tournament setting; all are tools to help make your opponents miserable. A vehicle is just a weapon on wheels. The original tournament may have started out as something of a cage fight with guns, but that has obviously broadened out to include vehicles and re-enactments of famous battles (a series of which has been poorly disguised as a "campaign" in UT3).

                Originally posted by i_hax View Post
                unfortunately...

                Noob-friendly is where its at.
                Why is that unfortunate?

                n00b friendly brings in players. Would you prefer an elitist game that provides zero fun or encouragement to its new blood and eventually atrophies?

                n00b friendly means everyone gets to have fun, not just the skilled players. At the end of the day, the good players still win. Is it really that much of a problem if, in losing, a n00b can still manage to frag a good player once in a while? Is it a matter of ego?

                I remember fatal1ty taking on all comers at some gaming event. Results were invariably either 10 - 0 or 10 - -1. Would it be unthinkable to have results like 10 - 3?

                Moreover... if it's so easy for a n00b in a tank to kill a pr0, then why isn't the pr0 the one in the tank?

                Comment


                  #23
                  Originally posted by xyx View Post

                  moreover... If it's so easy for a n00b in a tank to kill a pr0, then why isn't the pr0 the one in the tank?
                  agreed!!!

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Originally posted by i_hax View Post
                    It's not UT, or... rather it's what UT has become. It's where the new players flock to, just like any other game out there begging to sell to the hopeless noobs.

                    Games that require skill are not welcome anymore. People are lazy and give up or simply accuse others of cheating if they can't kill them. This is where the vehicle gametypes fill in, the spammy fun where anyone can get a kill. Nearly all recent games (such as CoD4) are headed this way - you can get good at it, but even the most skilled of players will die to a noob once in ahwile. This is what sells, and unfortunately...

                    Noob-friendly is where its at.
                    From what I see, very few n00bs are playing WARfare. When you see one, it's rare you see them for very long or usually ever again.

                    I agree with the point of people being lazy. They do not want to spend the time to learn the game or practice in order to gain skill. They want to play the game like a pro the first time they play it. When they get eaten alive and end up with a 0 or -1 score at the end, they complain about something or other. Even experienced high ranked players get owned now and then. The more you play --> The better you get --> The less you get owned --> The more you own them.

                    The simple fact is that it will take at least a couple hundred matches to even begin to get up to speed if your playing with experienced folks with several thousand matches of experience and practice behind them. So, whenever I hear folks wining about things like vehicles, or stinger, or shock, or orb, etc. All I hear is someone who really means, it's too hard, too fast, takes too much skill, too much strategy, too much thinking, too much practice, etc.

                    Camping is another matter. That is just part of the game. That is mostly a map issue. Maps like Islander are famous for the tank spawn camping. Yet, it's one of the most played, ie voted, maps on most servers I have played. Just part of the game.

                    Comment


                      #25
                      Originally posted by Tixylix View Post
                      What I want is Duel mode made into duel tournament mode where upto 32 people play eachother at the same time and the winner of each match goes on to play eachother until you have 2 people who beat everyone else play eachother.

                      That would be sooooo kool!


                      I'd also want shock rifles only, without the ALT fire and it to be one hit kills like the railgun mode in Quake.



                      I just love the old skool fast paced 1 v 1 in a small arena type thing. My only problem Is I don't like any explosive guns like the rocket launcher or the Biorifle etc etc. So I'd want it to be proper pin point accuracy weapons only.
                      try instagib. thats pretty much exactly what you are talking about. one hit kill without explosion.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        Originally posted by Xyx View Post
                        Why is that unfortunate?

                        n00b friendly brings in players. Would you prefer an elitist game that provides zero fun or encouragement to its new blood and eventually atrophies?

                        n00b friendly means everyone gets to have fun, not just the skilled players. At the end of the day, the good players still win. Is it really that much of a problem if, in losing, a n00b can still manage to frag a good player once in a while? Is it a matter of ego?
                        It's unfortunate because it shouldn't have to be that way, people should strive to become better at the game instead of giving up because they cannot kill anyone.

                        That is what I loved when I started playing, albeit late in UT2k4's lifetime. I loved getting my *** kicked by good players - watching them play, watching how they move, how they aim, and using it to better my own skills. It was a huge challenge from the start to become 'that guy' on the server, the one who wins without dying, the one who predicts everyone's movements and is one step ahead. I wanted to be that guy.

                        Years ago many people shared this goal. Skill was exactly that - and nothing but practice could match it. These days it seems (as I said in my other post) people simply give up if they cannot do well right off the bat... they have no will to learn the game.

                        To survive, most game companies have catered to these people, hence the 'noob friendly' games - and that is unfortunate.


                        EDIT: Actually I've got a good example: my recent college LAN party. I got a group to play a ffa DM just for fun, and they all quit half way through the first game because I didn't die. After the game I have a friend who plays competitive CS 1.6 ask me to play UT against him - a game he has never even tried. He lost over and over without getting a single kill, but continued to play for about 3 hours, if only to get better. He eventually got a kill on me after predicting I would be timing the belt (how many people learn that after 3 hours?) and we called it quits. Shortly after this, he gets accused of hacking (yes, at a LAN party) over a CS game - the unfortunate noob attitude.

                        Comment


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Xyx View Post
                          If it weren't for the vehicles, UT2004 and UT3 would just be awkward rehashes of UT99 (just like UT2003 was) and would be completely unable to compete with other top scifi shooters. The variety the game offers has increased exponentially with the introduction of vehicles.

                          I agree with part of the perceived problem, though; vehicle maps have lots of boring empty space in 'em. That's not the vehicles' fault. Vehicles don't need that much space (just look at what some people do with the tank in Downtown...). The problem is the distance between nodes and flags. The hoverboard somewhat alleviates the problem but does not solve it.


                          Same way as a translocator, a pair of jump boots or a shock rifle fit into a tournament setting; all are tools to help make your opponents miserable. A vehicle is just a weapon on wheels. The original tournament may have started out as something of a cage fight with guns, but that has obviously broadened out to include vehicles and re-enactments of famous battles (a series of which has been poorly disguised as a "campaign" in UT3).


                          Why is that unfortunate?

                          n00b friendly brings in players. Would you prefer an elitist game that provides zero fun or encouragement to its new blood and eventually atrophies?

                          n00b friendly means everyone gets to have fun, not just the skilled players. At the end of the day, the good players still win. Is it really that much of a problem if, in losing, a n00b can still manage to frag a good player once in a while? Is it a matter of ego?

                          I remember fatal1ty taking on all comers at some gaming event. Results were invariably either 10 - 0 or 10 - -1. Would it be unthinkable to have results like 10 - 3?

                          Moreover... if it's so easy for a n00b in a tank to kill a pr0, then why isn't the pr0 the one in the tank?
                          Or just look at what some people (myself included) can do with a scorpion in the enemy spawn room on tank crossing.

                          I_hax, not everyone has the time to play for hours on end to get better. Most people have ambitions that involve the real world and only play games as a hobby, not to get leetz0r at it since they understand that they'll never receive any tangible recognition for being good at a computer game. Many people only have a few hours per week to play ut3 (and that's if they're lucky). After a rough week, no one with a life finds it relaxing to go 0 frags and 100 deaths on a game. Because that's just plain f***ing annoying when you've already had whole week of dealing with the **** that comes with working and studying in the real world. Those working in the gaming industry have real world experience outside of games, and they understood this point. That's why it was a wise decision for the gaming industry as a whole to start catering for the so called n00bs.

                          Why do you think camper of duty is so popular? In terms of skill it doesn't require anywhere near as much as ut3 to win matches. The 'better' players still win most games. However, n00bs still manage to score frags quite frequently. This sort of equilibrium in which skilled no lifers win most matches, and casual/n00b players can still frag frequently is what makes games popular these days, and rightly so as it caters towards all sorts of people instead of just people with too much time on their hands.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Hmm... I always wonderd why games did not come with a N00b raiting system, they rate games on apropriatness of age, why not level of non-n00bishness it takes to enjoy it. Ofcoures you wouldent call it that.

                            (On a similar note, UT3 apears in my games file on vista with a rating of ECD (Early child hood Development) umm... should I be letting my younger cousens play around with Mining equiptment with the intent on Caving some ones face in? )

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Colicedus View Post
                              Hmm... I always wonderd why games did not come with a N00b raiting system, they rate games on apropriatness of age, why not level of non-n00bishness it takes to enjoy it. Ofcoures you wouldent call it that.

                              (On a similar note, UT3 apears in my games file on vista with a rating of ECD (Early child hood Development) umm... should I be letting my younger cousens play around with Mining equiptment with the intent on Caving some ones face in? )
                              UT3 has vista rating of ECD, ROFL

                              Comment


                                #30
                                Originally posted by H3i53nb3rg View Post
                                Don't say that Warfare is the worst mode as if it's a fact when your assertion is merely an opinion. The fact that a fairly large proportion of players who still play UT3 online are on Warfare attests to that.
                                I hear ya.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X