PDA

View Full Version : Changes in the next UT


DaBeatard
29th Mar 2005, 08:48 AM
http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=156602
http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=156526

Here are some changes from UT2K4 to the up coming version:

No BR, AS, DDom. Not even a mention one way or the other on LMS or Mutant. New gametype is called Conquest (mix of ONS & AS?). Lightning gun appears to be out. Bio, grenade, Mine Layer all rolled in to one gun. Dual Enforcers. Stinger replaces mini.
In the article they mention that the player movement will be toned down so fighting will be more close range than it is in UT2K4.

I think these changes are pretty good, especially cutting down on the gametypes.

SharKTanK
29th Mar 2005, 08:57 AM
More Killing (UT), Less Running Away (2k3/4) :tup:

Ps..dDG
29th Mar 2005, 09:01 AM
Am I really to only one who thinks this 'next' UT is just gonna be crap ?
Why the hell are they gonna replace a cool weapon like the minigun with an oldschool weapon (stinger) ? And conquest sounds like a cheap gametype to me.

Dirdmister
29th Mar 2005, 09:12 AM
Hmm i already saw this on unrealnorth so ill cop from there: -
No mention of Assault or Domination. - GOOD! they suck
Onslaught - NOT GOOD! it sucks too
Conquest mode - Sounds lame
sleafs - "Sleaves" spell it right :D <-- doesnt apply here :D
Unreal Tournament 2006 - Orgasmic feeling jus saying it 8)

Taleweaver
29th Mar 2005, 09:16 AM
# Expect UT2004's "bounciness" to be toned down in the next UT.
# The double-jump is back.
Am I the only one not having a clue what this means :confused:

# It is possible that "Envy" will not be called "Unreal Tournament 2006" or "Unreal Tournament 2007".
\o/

# As with many UT2004 levels, the layout of maps in the next UT is being finalized before artwork is incorporated.
...like it should have been in the first place

# Further info on the Conquest gametype:
* Features eight teams, each with unique armor.
Eight teams? I better not forget to bind "say TEAMS!!!" to a button :hmm:

# "We've paid [...] a lot of attention to what the guys in the community are saying, and we take that feedback to heart." - Jim Brown
Sounds nice, but in my community experience, everyone wants a different game (try digging up the feature request threads from a while back)

Further thoughts:
Seriously gonna miss BR, but I must agree that it's better to ditch it than having it around and have a completely split up community
I never get around to truly understand the theoretical aspects of a gametype ('t was the same with onslaught), so I better not give too much commentary on things.

Symbolikal
29th Mar 2005, 09:16 AM
No AS? I'm seriosly reconsidering buying this.

Metakill
29th Mar 2005, 09:41 AM
I'm waiting a year before I get excited.

BlackLeaf
29th Mar 2005, 11:11 AM
Conquest mode sounds overwhelming to me. It almost sounds like something where each game will take half a day to complete. I hope this is only due to the early nature of such news about the new game, and that things will start making more sense the closer to a final version that they get to.

DaBeatard
29th Mar 2005, 11:19 AM
Yeah, it's too early to make judgements on anything yet, but I think the road they're taking is better than what they did from UT to UT2K3.

SlayerDragon
29th Mar 2005, 11:21 AM
I do like the sound of a lot of the changes. More fighting and less running away sounds good to me.

DaBeatard
29th Mar 2005, 11:28 AM
I do like the sound of a lot of the changes. More fighting and less running away sounds good to me.
There was no mention of the shield gun either. Looks like they really do want more fighting.

LooseCannon
29th Mar 2005, 11:36 AM
Overall it sound good to me.

Update - 27 Mar 05 9:45PM EST by RaptoR: (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=156526) ... "there may be the option to treat a conquest match like a long term war, so you can play, take a break, and then go back and play more later"

Can you imagine the 'discussion' at FragBu at 2pm EST that it's time for a break chaps, we'll restart this Conquest next Friday? That concept is going to be a challenge to implement.

Anyone used a 'Stinger'?

1337
29th Mar 2005, 11:39 AM
Players less bouncy. That sucks. I doubt there is going to be anything better than ut2004 gameplay. One reason I stopped playing slow paced shooters is because I felt like my movement was being limited. There is nothing better than leaping around a well made map and reaping the benefits of learning how to dodge jump properly.

Symbolikal
29th Mar 2005, 11:58 AM
No mention of Assault or Domination. - GOOD! they suck

Now you must also die!
/me strangles Dird and throws him in a canal and throws a party for the whole UT2k4 forum.

Selerox
29th Mar 2005, 11:59 AM
All sounding good to me. Sounds like some old skool Unreal stuff's back. Overall I'm pretty happy. Dropping the mini for the stinger is probably a smart move long term. The weapons sound good, the fact that Epic genuinely seem to want to fix their mistakes can only be a good thing. The fact that seem to be putting gameplay in place and building graphics around it is another thing that makes me a lot more confident than I was.

At the end of the day, we're all UT fans, we'll buy it, play it and love it.

Sym - you know that AS will be modded after about a week right? It will happen :)

Tournament0
29th Mar 2005, 01:30 PM
I'm going to get a new computer, so I can take full advantage of Unreal Engine 3.
:tup:

BlackLeaf
29th Mar 2005, 01:43 PM
Sym - you know that AS will be modded after about a week right? It will happen :)

That's a good point, as wasn't there a team making AS for UT2k3 before the announcment of 2k4?

AMmayhem
29th Mar 2005, 01:51 PM
# * Features eight teams, each with unique armor.
Eight teams kind of worries me some. I'm more worried about them having odd little 'abilities' (such as the armor) associated with each of the Humans, Krall, Necris, etc. that may not be balanced quite right.

# No AS, BR, DDOM
As much as I love BR like Taleweaver, it is probably best they eliminate these lesser played gametypes to keep from splitting everyone up.

# DM, TDM, CTF, ONS
I love ONS as well, only I don't think people quite get it, unless they start playing maps with 8+ nodes. Then strategy really comes into play. As for DM, TDM, and CTF- How can you not leave those out?!

# Conquest
I love this idea. Everyone is worried about half day long matches. I for one look forward to these. I love the Half Life mod Natural Selection, and some of those matches would go 3-6 hours. Conquest sounds like we're getting closer to all out war. It would be cool for offline play if you could save in the middle of a match and continue later. That would be so awesome.

# Weapons
I love their ideas for changing weapons, almost completely. I've never been a fan of the Biorifle until UT2004, it finally seems effective to me, but that's only a minor gripe, I'll wait to see what the Canister gun does.

W00t to no ASSault Rifles, and back to Enforcers.

As for the the Stinger-Minigun switch, I don't think they're gaining much. Though I don't know what modifications the Stinger has now. The Pulse gun originally replaced the Stinger, with a better secondary fire. But if they're keeping the Link Gun, and adding the Stinger, it seems a little redundant. The primary fire is basically the same, only the Stinger shoots Tarydium shards. The secondary just shot like 5 at once in a random pattern. Have to wait and see how this turns out.

* Nakhti (Egyptians from UC2)
* Necris
* Juggernauts
* The Corrupt
* Iron Guard
* Krall
* Jacob's Team (Marines?)
* "Player's Team" (Unnamed)

I say get rid of the Egyptians, and throw the Skaarj back in, or maybe even the Nali for giggles. Egyptians don't say "Unreal franchise" to me, stick with original aliens like they have with the Krall.

--------------------------------
I just can't wait for more info at this point. I'm just going to eat it up when it gets here! :D

BooGiTyBoY
29th Mar 2005, 01:51 PM
Well if nothing else the missing gametypes will still give you a reason to play 2k4.

But I'm a little iffy on the no shield-gun thing... I needs my pogo-stick dammit.

Also if this follows the current "storylines" they better have a damn good Gorge in it after how they sissy-fied him in UC2. Hopefully it's just a "stage" he's going through now... :(

Sir_Brizz
29th Mar 2005, 02:03 PM
Come on people!

The minigun sucks!! Why would you want to keep it even over the classic stinger????

Symbolikal
29th Mar 2005, 02:44 PM
I think the shield gun will be modded back in. Krall in a UT game? I just remember them from unreal and UT99 MH. I have to see a render with a Krall holding a rocket launcher.
I like the way the movement is going to change, more pwnage and less cissyage (getting hit with a single AR bullet and thinking "oh noes, i lost some armour, I must run to teh shieldz0r") like the "pros" do.
My opinion has changed.

-AEnubis-
29th Mar 2005, 02:59 PM
Ok, with no mini, and no LtG, what do you need a shield for? IH could come back, and that would be beyond awesome. They have to have it for melee at least.

Saying they are keeping the double jump is confusing, but if they at least limit it, then my faith in their community research is great. Namely because you say the community wants a different game, and as a majority, that may be true, but apperantly, they are paying attention to the hardcore unreal fans.

My evidence: The two things I've been preaching about most in regards to changes in gameplay for a UT sequel, is lessend movement stuff (namely removal of the double jump, though nerfing it could be acceptable), and a great reduction in the amount of hitscan in this game. No LtG, No mini, and no bouncyness looks like they've read plenty of what I've written. That gametype list reduces map types over all, something else I mentioned, though didn't want to lose BR (but as much as I can play it and have good games, it's not real loss). Less gametypes for me to play means more concentration on the ones that are there (mostly solution to a personal problem I have of wanting to be moderately good at everything as opposed to being really good at one thing).

Once again, despite mass scepticism, my faith and anticipation for this is as good as it ever is or was with previous sequels.

Call me a fanboi, but "Hail Epic."

JohnDoe641
29th Mar 2005, 03:01 PM
No LtG, No mini, and no bouncyness looks like they've read plenty of what I've written.
lol, somebody is full of themself. D:

It's highly doubtful that you are the single factor in thier decision to remove these weapons.

-AEnubis-
29th Mar 2005, 03:04 PM
I know, and I said it in another thread.

Doesn't change the fact that I am full of myself, but stuff dealing with this game is subsequent of it, not the other way around ;)

1337
29th Mar 2005, 03:11 PM
I think egyptians would look cool, since we are past the days when it was hard to make a bareskinned player look realistic. Plus from all this GoW propaganda floating about I think some pornstar lookin' egyptians would be pretty awesome.

Not sure if it's going to be taken seriously by the competitive TDM or 1v1 community.
I hope they leave some skill involved in 1v1. I love how in ut2k4 you have to be quite skilled yourself to do any damage to an insanely skilled opponent.

-AEnubis-
29th Mar 2005, 03:17 PM
The problem is who's definition of what skills are important. I used to like the idea of duels, but control as made me lose total interest in them.

It'll prolly be a lot more like UT, but with the new toned down item system. There will still be plenty of skill involved, their just prolly will be less "safe strategys", and hence force people to take more risks, or make taking risks less costly (no LtG should do that alone). More risks = more highlights = less frag vids composed of 40% headshots.

:tup:

Hunter
29th Mar 2005, 03:24 PM
Hmm i already saw this on unrealnorth so ill cop from there: -
No mention of Assault or Domination. - GOOD! they suck
Onslaught - NOT GOOD! it sucks too
Conquest mode - Sounds lame
sleafs - "Sleaves" spell it right :D <-- doesnt apply here :D
Unreal Tournament 2006 - Orgasmic feeling jus saying it 8)

AS & DDOM are great with the right people had some amazing UT2004 games in each gametype will be annoyed if I lost them.

ONS isn't great a failed attempt there (Overload was better for 2k3)

Conquest is a good gametype so long as it's done right. It's basically ONS with no generator to destory and just points to capture.

UT2006 <-- the year needs to be dropped and replaced with 3 or is it 4 now?

Selerox
29th Mar 2005, 04:15 PM
Ok, with no mini, and no LtG, what do you need a shield for? IH could come back, and that would be beyond awesome. They have to have it for melee at least.

Yeah, bring back the impact hammer. The shieldgun is a very lame weapon IMO, simply due to the "shield" bit. It promotes over-defensive gameplay and lack of agression. Removing the shield would force gametypes like CTF to keep their attacks organised rather than relying too much on the shielded guy. On balance I'd prefer they just bought back the hammer.

nick89
29th Mar 2005, 04:31 PM
My Gallery = http://img13.exs.cx/gal.php?g=cgw1st5gb5bl.jpg

AMmayhem
29th Mar 2005, 09:53 PM
Come on people!

The minigun sucks!! Why would you want to keep it even over the classic stinger????

Because the classic stinger sucked? :p


I do like the sound of a lot of the changes. More fighting and less running away sounds good to me.

As I've said before, it's Death Match, not Dodge Match. ;)

T2A`
29th Mar 2005, 10:25 PM
I'm actually glad they're nerfing the minigun. Shoots way too fast too accurately for as much damage as it does. :eek:

Capt.Toilet
29th Mar 2005, 11:01 PM
Hmmm

Nerfing the minigun sounds like they are doing the exact course of action that they did with 2k3 and we all know what happend there. Everyone cried and wanted a UT minigun that did UT damage and so we got it.

The whole ditching the bio rifle for a tri-pod pisses me off cause i like my goo gun, but seeing as how its like 2 years from release, theres much to change.

On the BR, AS, DDOM issue = :D :( :o respectively. I never liked BR and thought it was a waste of space since 2k3. They take away AS, only to bring it back, then to take it away again??? Again i say theres still 2 years left so hopefully it will change. DOM for life baby that is all.

I dont mind the double jump being brought back since most games i play nowadays has it in them, and im hoping the "bounciness" they are referring to is the dodge jumps/double dodge jumps/double flip in the air with a half twist dive jump. Because of these extra moves is the reason why 2k3/2k4 has never been as exciting to me as the original.

Tired now must go sleepy

hyrulian
29th Mar 2005, 11:26 PM
I seriously hope AS won't actually be removed by the time the details are finalized. That would suck. :(

-AEnubis-
29th Mar 2005, 11:50 PM
I have no beefs with the shield, when used properly, and not pussily, it's great, but with so much less hitscan, it's not necessary, and I would have no problem taking it out, where as at current, it is needed IMO to maintain a balance to hitscan (as a concept).

The classic stinger did suck, but if the projectiles were sped up faster then current pulse/link bolts, and fired the same rate, or a higher rate, it wouldn't suck so bad anymore. Then the other big question would remain, what happens with it's alt fire. Having two Projectile based shotgun type weapons would seem kinda silly.

m&ms
30th Mar 2005, 12:20 AM
No BR or Lg and nerfed movement........

Might I just say ****!!!

I was an iBR ballcarrier for years, those are my only three strengths!

****, I guess I'd better start practicing my bunny hopping and rocket spamming. Sure looks like I'll need it.

T2A`
30th Mar 2005, 01:08 AM
It's not spam; it's calculated projectile placement. ;)

Besides, the higher player walking speed and dodge distance which is sure to be implemented will make up for the lack of a dodge-jump, and the shock rifle will still be there, so your beloved instagib hitscan h4x will still be around. :p

1337
30th Mar 2005, 01:38 AM
They are making sure we get to see all the pretty polygons of well detailed characters in fire fights. No more pixel fraggin :(. BR Lg and kick ass movements are things that I enjoy in ut2k4. But you just have to accept they aren't making the same game over again. I'm going to treat this just like any other game... if it's fun, I'll play it.

-AEnubis-
30th Mar 2005, 01:47 AM
Did you play much UT briach?

1337
30th Mar 2005, 02:08 AM
Never played UT. I don't think they are making UT over again as much as they are making ut2k4 over again. I'm just accepting that this is going to be an entirely new game, and I'm going to treat it exactly as if it is an entirely new game. I'm going to stop myself from being bitter about taking out the dodge jump and the wall dodge jump and the awesome shield jump and dodge and the jumppad combo jumps and the partner shield boostin and the... *tear*. bye bye tactical errors :'( we had some good times. I just hope they really get the netcode near perfect this time. And I hope they make it a visually intense game and there is a lot of audio sweetness. Also it would be great if players didn't blend in with map as much and the animations for the characters aren't as silly as a lot of characters animations in ut2k4. That is one of the main reasons I force juggernauts, because other character's animations look like crap.

edhe
30th Mar 2005, 02:36 AM
Sounds like a good deal to me, removing the hitscan & run away dominance & toning down the uberjumping (i love my dodgejumping but we do want a better game, and UT didn't have it did it?).

Makes it a more aggressive less ping-oriented fragfest. Now if they'd make it sound good with all the little details from that other thread....

Ps..dDG
30th Mar 2005, 06:51 AM
There was no mention of the shield gun either. Looks like they really do want more fighting.

I hope they don't. (seriously)

Ps..dDG
30th Mar 2005, 06:55 AM
Come on people!

The minigun sucks!! Why would you want to keep it even over the classic stinger????

What would you choose; a simple weapon that shoots some weird blue glass 'thingy's' or a *real gun with bullets ? I'd say the last one.

edhe
30th Mar 2005, 07:03 AM
As this is a game, called Unreal, i'd go for the blue glass thingies. After all it is a game, called unreal, and you won't be playing it for realism.

Just as long as it's not as pussywhipped as in Unreal.

Symbolikal
30th Mar 2005, 07:14 AM
I wouldn't double post either.
Getting back on-topic, they would probably chnage the secondary fire on the stinger, two shotgun-type weapons would be stupid.

fireball
30th Mar 2005, 09:21 AM
Though Unreal 1 had the flak cannon too, so it had two "shotgun" weapons... personally, I'd rather see the stinger get some kind of armor-piercing low-ROF secondary, but I doubt that'd happen.
I'm a little sad that AS is gone, but I'm pretty sure that once I play the game I won't miss it. I never play BR/DDOM, so I don't really care either way. No Skaarj though, that's going to be a little hard to stomach in an Unreal title.

Sir_Brizz
30th Mar 2005, 09:23 AM
What would you choose; a simple weapon that shoots some weird blue glass 'thingy's' or a *real gun with bullets ? I'd say the last one.
Well, I shouldn't really respond because for some reason you believe the minigun is a real gun with real bullets and the stinger is obviously a fake gun with fake bullets.

But consider this. The minigun is HITSCAN, it does 12/20 right now (I believe, Aenubis?) That is ridiculous amount of damage for hardly being able to see where the bullets are coming from.

The stinger is projectile based, so you see the attacker, you see the bullets so you can dodge them, and likely it is more like the UC2 Stinger (which is really nothing like the "Classic" stinger other than in name).

Yes, I would rather have a gun I stand a chancce against than one I don't. How about that.

iron12
30th Mar 2005, 12:26 PM
More Killing (UT), Less Running Away (2k3/4) :tup:

Well put. :)

-AEnubis-
30th Mar 2005, 02:04 PM
I thought it was 8/16 or something, but I haven't been keeping up with patches that may have changed it. It used to be a bit lower, but I do feel it has gotten stronger since I stopped paying attention...

Bri, UT was a much more "up close and person" game. The "pixel fraggin" as you call it was practically non-existant, unless you played a few silly custom maps. Other then the scaling being different, so the models appeared to be bigger, etc, it was rare you played a (T)DM map that it was possible to stand that far away from someone and be visible. A lot of the good gameplay maps forced you to be in close quarters with people, and barring a few of the nastier weapon (mini/sniper) the weapons were balanced for it, slower more powerful rockets, no blast radius on Flak bombs, less flak shards, cores traveled faster (increasing minimun combo range, and making moving combos much more difficult), slower beam ROF, and don't get me started on Bio. Well, I won't since it's apperantly been axed, so... There really was/is still a lot about that game I like better.

Not to mention the "environmental" features, and things mentioned in this (http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showthread.php?t=156636) thread. Any steps back towards stuff like that would be positive ones. Plus retaining features like the new projectile posession system, push kills, weapon balances, and I can't even imagine what it would be like being able to see the new model details on the old player scaling :o

It's good that you'll simply view it as a new game though, you kinda have to if you're not familiar with the entire franchise. Most of us that are seem better equipped to find the "positives" in seemingly drastic changes as some of these.

Oh, and here's a blurb about the UC2 Stinger... which sounds pretty cool to me...

"The stinger is a Liandri mining tool that fires shards of Tarydium crystal at an alarming rate. Continuous fire causes overheating, leading to a catalytic process that makes the shards even more deadly. The alternate fire shoots larger, semi-sapientshards that will veer towards a locked-on opponent."

Lock I'd assume achieved in the same way rockets do, hopefully not accompanied by a button hold ala-AVRiL, hence rewarding people with good trace skills, and supplementing the fact that it's not hitscan, but still enabling the target to see it's impending doom, and do something about it.

Sir_Brizz
30th Mar 2005, 02:19 PM
In UC2 you can use a sort of "soft lock on" to lock on to your enemies. It's purpose: to replace "auto aim". What it does is keep your enemy in your sights, but force you to aim at them to do anything to them. Alt fire on the stinger will make it veer towards the locked on person (you still have to aim because they aren't perfect and can't "veer" very far).

-AEnubis-
30th Mar 2005, 02:24 PM
So it's more like assigning a target so they know where to veer? as opposed to being alble to spam them and have them veer at anything near your xhair?

Sir_Brizz
30th Mar 2005, 02:42 PM
right.

It's kind of more like the Needler in Halo than anything when you alt fire. They steer towards enemies but they don't just swing all over the place and chase them. They have less homing power than the rockets locked on.

-AEnubis-
30th Mar 2005, 02:49 PM
The latter I figured. Sounds cool to me.

JaFO
30th Mar 2005, 05:39 PM
That's a good point, as wasn't there a team making AS for UT2k3 before the announcment of 2k4?
sure ... and all they ever released was a barely playable alfa.

I'd be glad if Assault was gone for good, because the maps required far too much time to build and still ended up as being predictable spam-fests at fixed locations.

IMHO ONS and Conquest are perfect replacements for Assault. Sure it might not have the pretty briefings & background, but at least they offer more tactics without being too complicated for newbies to play.

I'm not too sure about (D)DOM & BR dissapearing, but since they're essentially modifications of CTF they shouldn't be too difficult to bring back to life.
I would have reduced the list of 'official' gametypes to : DM, TDM, ONS & Conquest thereby giving the game a 'war-theme' as definite focus (DM & TDM to practice fighting, ONS to practice basic Conquest-tactics & Conquest for the 'real' deal). Mod-teams would still be able to build CTF et al of the back of the TDM gametype.

Dark Pulse
30th Mar 2005, 05:56 PM
CTF is pretty much a staple of games now, JaFO. Selling a game without CTF will kill any Multiplayer ideas if it's supposed to be a mostly Multiplayer game.

T2A`
30th Mar 2005, 06:15 PM
But consider this. The minigun is HITSCAN, it does 12/20 right now (I believe, Aenubis?) That is ridiculous amount of damage for hardly being able to see where the bullets are coming from.I know the primary does 7 damage per hit, and I think the secondary does 14. In either case, it's ridiculous the amount of damage it does due to how easy it is to use. If it had crazy recoil (think Rainbox Six where you have to pull down while shooting because the guns kicked up) it'd probably be more balanced. The rate of fire is crazy for doing 7 damage a hit.

You can't really tell where someone's shooting by the bullet tracers though, because just as in a real machine gun, only some of the bullets are tracer rounds, and those are the ones you see. Even then they're not true tracer rounds as the minigun IS hitscan after all, so it's just a fake animation that goes off in the general direction the bullets are flying. The actual bullets and sparks upon impact is all done instantaneously in the code, and if you took out the fake tracers and impact sparks, there would be no visual cue that the gun was being fired. Try this: Shoot the alternate fire once at a wall some distance away. You will see the explosion on the wall before the fake tracer gets there. :o

BadAss84
30th Mar 2005, 07:44 PM
As this is a game, called Unreal, i'd go for the blue glass thingies. After all it is a game, called unreal, and you won't be playing it for realism.


Then in that case, why keep the sniper and get rid of the LG ? :/

I will miss the LG and movement in the next game if it turns out the way it sounds atm, but chances are the community would be bigger (more ut style gameplay would attract UTT99 peeps) and thats always a good thing.

Im sure it will be a great game and i'll most likely get it :p, just would disappoint me to not have the same level of freedom as in 2k4, and not having my fave weapon (LG) :(

Spiffy935
30th Mar 2005, 10:16 PM
I am not here to proclaim any game type to be better than another. I am not here to proclaim that a game type or developement in the Unreal franchise sucks. I am here only to try to enlighten some people if they will consider my views.
Finally, I have made it to godlike skill in UT2004 (without autoaim). Only through many hours of practice have I accomplished such a feat. I am now proficient in being able to win on godlike for one reason - the practice I have put into it. Why do I practice so much? It is because I truly enjoy the game that Unreal Tournament has evolved into.
I remember waiting for UT2004 to ship, I was so anxiously waiting for the release. Never had I gotten so excited about a game or been fanatically obsorbed into it. Though I hadn't played many first person shooters prior to the release of UT2004, I knew the game had potential to be one of the greatest first person shooters ever created. I knew that it would take skill and mastering of the variety of weapons provided in order to succeed at becoming a master of the game.
But what was it that excited me about the game? It was the character of the game that made it stand apart from the generic types of shooter games such as the realistic weapon / team based Counter Strike and the rapid, uber quick reflexes of the rocket and semifuturistic weapons of Quake 3. How did it stand out? It took what was already popular but fading and revamped the excitement with inovation such as the biorifle and mine layer. The vibrant colors and artistic locales of the game impressed me when I compared it to the dull browns and beige colors of older shooter games. I am still playing UT2004 because I cannot find any other game that has impressed me as much as UT2004 has. I have even went back to the original UT and UT2003 to see how they feel in comparison to UT2004. I have only been able to conclude that UT2004 strikes a nice balance and feels the void that the other two have.
That is why I fear the next UT will dampen my enthusiasm. With UT2004, there was a variety of guns, so many that a player would probably not properly use each one per match. Though those weapons were often not equiped, their use was vital in some cases. More importantly, it gave players the value of selection. Each gamer has their own preference of weapon choice and it is their right to be given that choice. Such news of the removal of some guns and the replacement of others in the next UT disrupts that right to all gamers. I appreciate my lightning gun. I find I do better with it than with the sniper rifle. I can only best describe the effect of being able to see the location of the hit from the lightning projectile, compared to the instant hit without being able to see the bullet shot from the sniper rifle, as the reason why I do so much better.
Next concern that I have is the evolution of weapon design. Compared to the original UT, I will take the UT2003/2004 rocket launcher instead. It appears to be more modern in looks and suits a modern game more appropriately. Why must the community feel that the Unreal Tournament franchise must go back to its roots to be a quality game? Is the old style gaming that important for a new graphics engine? I want to see art that helps define a futuristic game such as the next UT.
Also, why the exclusion of certain character races? Such an act goes back to my earlier mention of the importance of diversity. The Skaarj have been very important definition to Unreal. I am a big fan of the Skaarj race. Am I the customer that buys the game not important enough for a little more time to be spent designing some Skaarj characters? What about those who want all of the other races not mentioned to be included so far? Are their gaming enjoyment and definition of who they are through the use of their chosen character not important?
Biggest fear that I have is the lack of mentioning the inclusion of Bombing Run, Assault, etc... Once again, there are some people that enjoy these game types very much. All because the majority of the gamers of UT2004 doesn't play these game types constantly doesn't mean they should be excluded. I don't play Bombing Run very often, but I will play a few rounds and truly enjoy the experience every now and then.
My point that I am trying to make is to diversify to help meet the needs of everyone who plays the game. Don't ask the next Unreal Tournament to return to its roots, ask it to be the continuing developement of a game that imbraces what was started by the original UT. I urge the Unreal community to stop trying to declare certaing aspects of the game superior to other parts. Instead, try to imbrace your COMMUNITY of fellow gamers and not ignore what they enjoy in a game compared to what you enjoy.
I can only hope that these issues will be resolved by the time the game is released or by the modding community that is out there with the sole determination to improve the gaming experience for gamers.
Oh, by the way, I have been enjoying UT2004 on godlike ran on a 900MHz Celeron, 384MB PC133 RAM, PCI Geforce 4 MX400, and a 133MHZ front side bus. Guess what? I would enjoy a round of UT2004 Bombing Run at literally 8 frames per second with last year's graphics than running the next UT at 60 frames per second with brilliant graphics but lacking in the variety of gameplay that I enjoy more.
-Spiffy

hal
30th Mar 2005, 11:00 PM
Welcome to BU, spiffy.

Here's one word for everyone worried about the lack of their favorite gametype or character.... modifications.

Yeah, I know that the Unreal community has an allergy to mods, but maybe the lack of some familiar gametypes might spark the interest in some, who can then input their own rules and nuances into the gametype. Conquest is said to have "assault-like objectives". Who knows? Assault players (and others) may just like this better.

Fewer gametypes to develop means we get the full attention of the developer on the core gametypes. They can take more time polishing things to a shine rather than hopping around like bunnies trying to balance out all of them.

Missing your favorite weapon? It's way too early to tell what changes are taking place to the ones that have been mentioned.

m&ms
30th Mar 2005, 11:21 PM
Missing your favorite weapon? It's way too early to tell what changes are taking place to the ones that have been mentioned.
Probably still safe to assume that the sniper rifle isn't going to be modified to shoot bolts of electricity ;)

Actually, I wouldn't mind the sniper rifle at all if the damn thing's bullets were actually visible. Invisible bullets just don't mix well with a non-uber ping.

hal
30th Mar 2005, 11:43 PM
Probably still safe to assume that the sniper rifle isn't going to be modified to shoot bolts of electricity ;)

Actually, I wouldn't mind the sniper rifle at all if the damn thing's bullets were actually visible. Invisible bullets just don't mix well with a non-uber ping.

Yeah, you might safely assume that the SniperRifle won't shoot electricity. :)

I have a pretty open mind about it because I happened to love the Unreal and UT SniperRifles. When UT2003 came out I hated the LtG. I have to admit that I got used to using it more in UT2004 and kind of like it now.

For those of you who have only the UT2004 SniperRifle to go by... don't. It's a wimpy weapon when compared to its previous incarnations.

grimstar
30th Mar 2005, 11:57 PM
No adrenaline, hoorar!

http://forums.beyondunreal.com/images/icons/icon14.gif

-AEnubis-
31st Mar 2005, 12:57 AM
cSR with a visible projectile bullet, and carry through. That would be tight.

JohnDoe641
31st Mar 2005, 01:02 AM
For those of you who have only the UT2004 SniperRifle to go by... don't. It's a wimpy weapon when compared to its previous incarnations.
I hated the UT sniper rifle in hardcore mode. In classic, it was ok.

But it was too powerful otherwise. Getting headshot after headshot proved that to me. But then again, the UT hs area was much bigger. :c

T2A`
31st Mar 2005, 02:01 AM
The UT sniper rifle was ridiculous. All you had to do was aim in the general vicinity above their waist and you'd get a headshot. I'm not that great at hitscan, as those at FragBU can attest to, so when I get seven headshots in a row, you know something's up.

I don't like UT2004's sniper rifle due to the lack of being able to see where you shot. It's not so much the ping like M&Ms said for me (though that is a very good point), but I like the "visualness" of being able to see exactly where my shot traced out to. It does something psychological to me to the point I can't hit anything with the sniper. I just can't. Now, I will always hope for lightning in the upcoming UT, but as long as the sniper has some sort of bullet smoke trail (see Halo for an example), I won't mind the change too much.

SanitysEdge
31st Mar 2005, 02:20 AM
Am I really to only one who thinks this 'next' UT is just gonna be crap ?
Why the hell are they gonna replace a cool weapon like the minigun with an oldschool weapon (stinger) ? And conquest sounds like a cheap gametype to me.

A newbie wouldnt understand :p


It looks like it will be an awesome game. More UT, less 2kx is very good. I used to play UT all the time, I think I launched the exe for 2k3 and 4 less than 100 times (Wish I was joking here) while UT was somewhere, likely in the order of at least 10 times more.

The UT sniper rifle was way overpowered, It required 1 to about 3 hits to kill someone, did an assload of damage, and had a refire rate of 1.something seconds iirc, it was about .7 in excessive overkill, which was the most pwnage mod for a game... ever. The 2kx version of EO sucks ass for some reason.

EO for UT basicly allowed a perfect combonation of UT and UT2kx. You could move around really fast with rockets, or jumping by using weapons, since selfdamage was off for everyone (Rippers moved you the fastest, if the ground was flat, but you could literally fly accross any map with a rocket launcher, which was my most used weapon). Weapons fired insanely fast and did alot of damage, people had alot of heath... It was a killing fest.

Also, for some reason, I find UT to have alot more fluidity when it comes to aiming, unlike ut2kx. more edits: I think this is a reason why I find shock cores easier to hit in UT than 2kx. I have come up with a theroy as to this loss of fluidity: There was a thread on how a PS/2 mouse is faster than USB, ive mostly been using usb since a bit into playing 2k3 the little time that I did play it.

Another thing: Less gametypes = better for everyone. That means everyone will have fewer gametypes to go to, and there were be more people playing each gametype, unlike ut2kx where there was a billion gametypes.

MORE EDITS::::!!!!@#!@#@$#@: The shieldgun was a great concept... but not all concepts work in practice. Conquest sounds like sex.

I think im done with the editing now.

B
31st Mar 2005, 04:01 AM
Bring back the impact hammer! And I'll be cheating again :D

NeoNite
31st Mar 2005, 04:05 AM
The UT sniper rifle was ridiculous. All you had to do was aim in the general vicinity above their waist and you'd get a headshot. I'm not that great at hitscan, as those at FragBU can attest to, so when I get seven headshots in a row, you know something's up.


So, I bet you had like tons of nightmares of evil ut sniper rifles ganging up on you and...

No adrenaline, hoorar!

Hoora indeed! (If so...)

JaFO
31st Mar 2005, 01:17 PM
CTF is pretty much a staple of games now, JaFO. Selling a game without CTF will kill any Multiplayer ideas if it's supposed to be a mostly Multiplayer game.
Why ?
Brothers in Arms doesn't have CTF. It only features an objective/mission-based gametype.

Splintercell never had CTF either ...

BF1942 & CS never had CTF either and they are the most popular mp-games at present.

A *good* multplayer-game can survive without being forced to use the 'classic' gametypes as well.
I'd even say that without the 'classic' gametypes the skills of the players are more likely to be in line with how the game ought to be played according to the developers.

And as said before :
- any 'classic' gametype can be modded after release by either mod-teams or Epic themselves (expansion/bonuspack ?)

- less gametypes => more time/resources per gametype => a better game with more and better maps for each gametype

Zur
31st Mar 2005, 04:43 PM
I think egyptians would look cool, since we are past the days when it was hard to make a bareskinned player look realistic. Plus from all this GoW propaganda floating about I think some pornstar lookin' egyptians would be pretty awesome.

Those egyptain ladies need improved underwear :p .

Dark Pulse
31st Mar 2005, 04:49 PM
Those egyptain ladies need improved underwear :p .
Do they even have Underwear? :o

NeoNite
31st Mar 2005, 05:05 PM
Do they even have Underwear? :o

DO they even NEED underwear ;-) ?

dinwitty
31st Mar 2005, 05:41 PM
Conquest sounds like the replacement for Assault with added features. A map maker could make it 2 teams only, but I like the 8 teams possibility because UT had 4 teams and UT2k3/4 had only 2 and there was interest in 4 teams and it got modded in.

8 teams, well, thats going to be wowzers.

Don't knock it till you tried it, I have played something similar already based on the idea of Star Trek with 4 team ship battles dropping armies on planets and taking over the universe with one team.
It was popular back then, and it can still be in that sort of style, kudos to Epic to implement it in another manner.

Sir_Brizz
31st Mar 2005, 05:51 PM
it's 8 CLASSES not 8 TEAMS all at once. What they mean is that there are 8 teams as in Juggernauts, Humans, Necris, Jakob's Team, Nakhti, etc. not that you play with 8 different groups of people.

dinwitty
31st Mar 2005, 07:03 PM
it's 8 CLASSES not 8 TEAMS all at once. What they mean is that there are 8 teams as in Juggernauts, Humans, Necris, Jakob's Team, Nakhti, etc. not that you play with 8 different groups of people.

- Further info on the Conquest gametype:
* Features eight teams, each with unique armor.
* Conquest maps are "potentially as large as three onslaught maps with assault-like objectives and even a form of limited resource management planned"
* "there may be the option to treat a conquest match like a long term war, so you can play, take a break, and then go back and play more later"
* "you can use your stats to find similarly abled opponents"
* "pre-game lobbies" will be present in some form
* "clan pages and other sites will be able to be viewed from within the game"
* "conquest will take advantage of the Unreal Engine 3's ability to seamlessly stream maps by putting you in a battlefield the size of several maps stitched together"
* "players will battle on one of two teams, each sides terriroty will look physically different, as you take a territory it will convert to the otherteams structures and physical surroundings"
* "conquest should appeal to a wider gaming audience and provide a place where longer-term strategy, teamwork, and face-to-face fragging all meet"

be cool if they did 8 teams, 4 teams would be enuff....

Sir_Brizz
31st Mar 2005, 08:13 PM
players will battle on one of two teams[picking characters from out of the 8 Classes/Teams], each sides terriroty will look physically different, as you take a territory it will convert to the otherteams structures and physical surroundings

:)

1337
31st Mar 2005, 08:16 PM
Sounds pretty awesome actually. Like WoW Starcraft and UT goodness combined XD

Black_Seeds
3rd Apr 2005, 11:36 PM
BF1942 & CS never had CTF either and they are the most popular mp-games at present.


Actually BF 1942 DID have a CTF Gametype, and while it may not be necessary to be part of a military game such as BiA or Splinter Cell, i think it is essential that it is included in games such as UT or Quake etc..

Tournament0
4th Apr 2005, 07:53 AM
No adrenaline is good. It serves no purpose.

B
4th Apr 2005, 07:59 AM
No adrenaline is good. It serves no purpose.

Sure it does, giving the stronger player even more of the upperhand! Great stuff! ;)


Nah, I won't shed a tear if they ditch adrenaline.

JaFO
4th Apr 2005, 08:07 AM
... i think it is essential that it is included in games such as UT or Quake etc..
Why ?
It sounds like the only reason you've got is "because" or "to please the ancient fans".
Neither sounds like a good reason to feature it in a new game.
Especially since there's nothing mentioned that's being done to improve the gametype, unless they do something radical like using weaponlockers or remove all pickups.

It only takes a few days to mod back in again and there are plenty of mappers that can build the kind of CTF-maps the 'community' would want.
Epic would have to build at least 2 dozen CTF-maps if they were to have any chance of creating enough maps to please the community.

It would allow Epic to focus on those gametypes/maps they do have, which I consider to be more important than pleasing a minority that already has plenty of games to play (UT, UT2kx, Quake, etc.).

Sir_Brizz
4th Apr 2005, 08:47 AM
Why ?
It sounds like the only reason you've got is "because" or "to please the ancient fans".
Neither sounds like a good reason to feature it in a new game.
Especially since there's nothing mentioned that's being done to improve the gametype, unless they do something radical like using weaponlockers or remove all pickups.

It only takes a few days to mod back in again and there are plenty of mappers that can build the kind of CTF-maps the 'community' would want.
Epic would have to build at least 2 dozen CTF-maps if they were to have any chance of creating enough maps to please the community.

It would allow Epic to focus on those gametypes/maps they do have, which I consider to be more important than pleasing a minority that already has plenty of games to play (UT, UT2kx, Quake, etc.).
In relation to UE3, we don't know how simple/hard it's going to be to do anything at this point. Judging from past experience, it will be a little more difficult than 2kX was (judging by UT->2kX).

CTF is a staple gametype. If they remove it now, they lose a fairly consistent playerbase. In other words, don't get too antsy to see it gone until the player numbers are sub par.

Monday..
4th Apr 2005, 09:18 AM
Yes UT2006 will be a completely different game to the UT2004, look how UT99 was against UT2004? I know UT2003 was cr@p so I won't mention it again.

All we seem to be interested in is DM and CTF anyway, so what if (D)DOM and AS dissappear they weren't any good (as for ONS...well?!).

The Unreal3 engine looks great by the way and am waiting for the 2006 release (heh, whilst playing original UT,2004 it too much like Halo to be UT but the graphics are better..)

JaFO
4th Apr 2005, 11:33 AM
...
CTF is a staple gametype. If they remove it now, they lose a fairly consistent playerbase. In other words, don't get too antsy to see it gone until the player numbers are sub par.
So what if they loose players because of the removal of a 'classic' gametype ?
They've still got them in UT2kx and all the other series.
And on top of that they stand to gain a lot of *new* players with these new gametypes, provided they can get them balanced & fun to play.

I mean ... it's not as if adding Assault to UT2k4 helped to sell the game.
IMHO the introduction of Onslaught did far more for UT2k4's salesfigures in the end.

Likewise I doubt that the removal of CTF will do that much damage overall, *because* not every UT2kx/UT99-clan will switch to this new game anyway.

Sir_Brizz
4th Apr 2005, 12:11 PM
So what if they loose players because of the removal of a 'classic' gametype ?
They've still got them in UT2kx and all the other series.
And on top of that they stand to gain a lot of *new* players with these new gametypes, provided they can get them balanced & fun to play.

I mean ... it's not as if adding Assault to UT2k4 helped to sell the game.
IMHO the introduction of Onslaught did far more for UT2k4's salesfigures in the end.

Likewise I doubt that the removal of CTF will do that much damage overall, *because* not every UT2kx/UT99-clan will switch to this new game anyway.
It's more likely that the closer this game is to UT99, the more people are going to come from both games.

And like you said, it probably wouldn't take that long to mod in CTF, so why not have it included anyways? Plus, I would guess most Epic guys are CTF players anyways, considering how much support it is given IN GENERAL (not considering UT2k4...).

Considering that DM/TDM, CTF, and ONs are the most played gametypes of 2k4, it is not likely they are going to get rid of them. Plus, Epic has always been about additional content, so supporting one single gametype would be suicide for them, literally.

-AEnubis-
4th Apr 2005, 12:24 PM
That and if the competative community does drop their egos finally, and decide to get more organized, the having those things there, and with sanctioned rules by epic will facilitate things, and look much better for them in the long run.

Where as if somthing like that does happen, and they don't include CTF, then their game won't get played at major events, and then lose another large portion of a player base.