PDA

View Full Version : No more Bonus Packs! (Its not what it looks like! REALLY!)


[IsP]KaRnAgE
12th May 2005, 05:30 PM
Seriously, down with bonus packs. I'm not saying down with free new content though. I'm just saying there is a better way of delivering it. How? Take a look at good ol' Counter-Strike. New maps and stuff are released through patches, that all players HAVE to downloaded. This means that all servers WILL have that content, and all players to. If you do not think this method is a good one then you are just being a straight up CS basher.

Bonus packs are a thing of the past and only prove to be an annoyance imho. I hated having to look for servers that were running ECE because alot had a bad habit of not putting it in their title. After ECE was released I didn't want to play on servers that didn't have it, but since it wasn't a mandatory update, alot of servers (at the time, I don't know how it is recently) didn't bother installing.

So rather than waiting until they have 200mb of new stuff, why not slowly feed us new content (a map or two here, a model or two there) over time? This ensures everyone has the same content and can play on any server not running custom content.

What about people with 56k? What about them!? 56kers don't play CS then? CS has WAAAAAAAY more players than any of the older UTs did, and it seems to manage just fine pushing maps through in patches rather than bonus packs.

Note: I am not saying UT should have a STEAM-like service. I am just saying new content should be pushed in PATCHES and not in seperate bonus packs that people don't have to download.

togmkn
12th May 2005, 05:46 PM
Yeah, I agree. Steam is an awkward idea to say the least, and shouldn't be used in UT2K7. Bonus packs can get annoying, and when running with servers, blah. I don't think it's horrible, but I would like a map released now and then instead of a pack. Official maps should be released in patches, but I don't really think so with user-made maps. Then again, I don't think CS takes that route, the only Steam-downloaded maps are made by the makers of CS.

G.Lecter
12th May 2005, 06:20 PM
Patches are patches and maps are maps... :rolleyes:
Adding some maps in a patch would rise its filesize and make some people not download it... Not everyone can download maps (big filesize) but everyone should be able to fix the bugs the game has...
A good server will have the official Bonus Packs anyway... And there also will be lots of unofficial mapacks you want or not... ;)

Ignotium
12th May 2005, 06:39 PM
Patches are patches and maps are maps... :rolleyes:
Adding some maps in a patch would rise its filesize and make some people not download it... Not everyone can download maps (big filesize) but everyone should be able to fix the bugs the game has...
A good server will have the official Bonus Packs anyway... And there also will be lots of unofficial mapacks you want or not... ;)

IWY

1337
12th May 2005, 07:27 PM
Let the community do what it wants. People that game on computers aren't the type that need to be spoon-fed stuff. Don't hinder admins from adding what they want to the server. Don't handicap the ut2k4 community.

zynthetic
12th May 2005, 07:49 PM
I agree that bonus content should be included in patches but when you compare the amount of content Epic has been know to release w/ BPs I don't think it would be appropriate for a Tournament game.
I'd be happier w/ seperate patches/BPs as long as they don't create conflicts w/ themselves (UT's de.u and some random ECE stuff for 2k4).

Black_Seeds
12th May 2005, 11:39 PM
Let the community do what it wants. People that game on computers aren't the type that need to be spoon-fed stuff. Don't hinder admins from adding what they want to the server. Don't handicap the ut2k4 community.

I couldnt agree more, i dont want to automatically have 50 maps that I am never going to play.

Defeat
13th May 2005, 01:34 AM
>I agree with both sides.

{RA}SKYFURNACE
13th May 2005, 01:43 AM
ECE was the first Bonus pack to not be "required" the ones before were.

I have no idea why epic made it optional.

krjal
13th May 2005, 02:38 AM
There was some odd marketing issues with the ECE because of selling it with the game and listing it as the 'selling' feature.

Personal opinion: Bonus packs should be required dl.

Mr.Magnetichead
13th May 2005, 03:36 AM
Patches are patches and maps are maps... :rolleyes:
Adding some maps in a patch would rise its filesize and make some people not download it...


If they are able to download a patch to fix online bugs then they are capable of DLing a few maps.

Black_Seeds
13th May 2005, 06:22 AM
If they are able to download a patch to fix online bugs then they are capable of DLing a few maps.

But like i said people may not want a whole lot of maps that they arnt going to play.

Mr.Magnetichead
13th May 2005, 07:07 AM
Whats a few extra mins for a Bonus Pack DL?

It's not like it's a regular occurance or you have anything better to do with your time.

Even if you do just leave the DL on and do something else.

shadow_dragon
13th May 2005, 09:22 AM
Many people do have something better to do!

Bazzi
13th May 2005, 09:26 AM
I'd like the idea of combining new content with patches and auto-downloading them, that ensures that everyone is at the same level content-wise.

Denny
13th May 2005, 09:29 AM
But even with 56k (that i do have....temporarily anyway) i'd still download it either way, Bonus Pack or Patch it don't matter you'd have to download both anyway (well in some cases). But no Steam-like crap that stuff is nasty!

rhirud
13th May 2005, 10:30 AM
The problem with the ECE release was that there was no easy way of telling if a server was running the old map or the new ECE version.

Every good server now cottoned on that if it's the ECE version they made a new map that had to be downloaded and called it, for example, ons-dawn-ece.

If it's the old dawn it was ons-dawn.

It was just poorly thought out

Discord
13th May 2005, 11:09 AM
KaRnAgE']If you do not think this method is a good one then you are just being a straight up CS basher.


Well... why yes, I'm a CS basher :D. I've played CS, along with a ton of other "realism"- oriented FPS, and TBH I find Space Invaders to be more engaging and realistic than CS.

But that has nary a thing to do with why I don't think UT needs this.

1. Why the ECE content was optional.

The ECE content was most probably the first optional official bonus pack in UT history simply because if you didn't play ONS, you neither needed nor wanted it; there was thus no point in spending HD space on it.

Furthermore, if the ONS servers weren't running it it was either because the admins didn't know or because they just didn't want it. And if they didn't want it, well, you could force them to install it all day long and you still wouldn't see any of it in their rotation. The "didn't know" bit I'm coming to...

And another thing: patches are often specifically designed to be backward- compatible and not mandatory as an acknowledgement of their WIP status. Patches can cause more problems than they fix for some selected users, and the option to roll them back is in many cases a godsend. Not to mention that the Mac and Linux patches are often on a staggered release schedule by necessity.

2. Download redirection.

In CS, and also in Q3 engine games, there's no such thing as download redirection. If you try to join a server running a map you don't have, you'll be looking at a status bar for a looooong time before giving up and going googling. If the server has downloads enabled at all -- a lot of them don't because of the stress it puts on the server.

UT is smart enough to let the servers farm those downloads out to webservers. Not only will these webservers provide faster delivery, but you can even get the file in compressed format and use it right away. For downloading custom content on the fly, UT is still king and a single map usually just isn't an issue, it's down before you know it.

Granted, downloading ECE via redirect would still suck (if it's even possible), but for individual maps it's no problem. This assures that the maps that are popular deserve to be that way (for one reason or another) and nobody has to store content they aren't going to use.




Now. The main thing I'd like to see changed in content distribution for UT is the "Community" tab in the GUI. The problem with it, simply, is that people don't go there except to watch a demo. What UT needs next, I think, is a little popup on the main menu screen that alerts users to the availability of new content.

And that's it, carry on. :)

G.Lecter
13th May 2005, 11:38 AM
If they are able to download a patch to fix online bugs then they are capable of DLing a few maps.
Remember 56k still exists... The average map size for a UT2004 map is 10MB(zipped), so the maps for UT2007 will pobably have higher filesize... (around 20megs?) ;)
Therefore, a patch that only fix bugs would be a 10MB file (cute and fast). However a patch with 5 new maps could rise to 100MB :o...

Denny
13th May 2005, 12:10 PM
Remember 56k still exists... The average map size for a UT2004 map is 10MB(zipped), so the maps for UT2007 will pobably have higher filesize... (around 20megs?) ;)
Therefore, a patch that only fix bugs would be a 10MB file (cute and fast). However a patch with 5 new maps could rise to 100MB :o...

Good Point. 10 MB really isn't that big of a deal on Dial-Up, it takes rougly 1 1/2 - 2 Hours. Be careful sayin that 56k's still exist, otherwise you'll hear alot of "Well why the hell don't you switch to broadband?" and so on, my answer is "I can't, we all don't live in big cities with cabel drops every 100 ft."

But that's something else entirely.

Mr.Magnetichead
13th May 2005, 01:04 PM
Remember 56k still exists...


But someone on 56k wouldn't be playing online would they?

So they wouldn't need a patch.

Also theres no excuse with programs like Getright and Gozilla out there. Not to mention bittorrents.

Bazzi
13th May 2005, 05:58 PM
I cannot imagine that you can play Conquest on a 56k connection anyway, way too much data if it's really involving ressource management etc.

Taleweaver
14th May 2005, 02:06 AM
But someone on 56k wouldn't be playing online would they?

So they wouldn't need a patch.

Also theres no excuse with programs like Getright and Gozilla out there. Not to mention bittorrents.
You know what a patch is, right? It's supposed to fix errors and get some balance tweaks. Offline players need that just as much as online ones.

It's simple, really. Patches and map packs are a completely different thing, and therefore they should be different downloads. If a server upgrades the server but doesn't include map pack X, then you should ask the server admin to include the packs.

{RA}SKYFURNACE
14th May 2005, 02:17 AM
you people do play current UT2Kwhatever right?

jeebus talk about DL's, join just about any server thats hosted and youll be downloading all night... mutators, crappy custom maps, gametypes, etc...

Yes you have the option to go search out the server domain and DL their server pack IF

The server admin made one for you to DL and isnt lazy.

and

Its up to date. Generally it isnt.



Complaining about DL'ing a patch and bonus pack is just silly in this day and age, esp when its free from epic.

UT has done the Bonus pack & patch thing very well since UT.

Nothing i hate more than a game that wont let you DL when you connect to a server.

Mr.Magnetichead
14th May 2005, 03:42 AM
You know what a patch is, right? It's supposed to fix errors and get some balance tweaks. Offline players need that just as much as online ones.


Not really.

If you're never going to play against anything but bots why would you need balancing issues?

Taleweaver
14th May 2005, 04:27 AM
Not really.

If you're never going to play against anything but bots why would you need balancing issues?
I don't get what you're saying. Lots of the patches upgrade the bot AI as well to better simulate the online environment. By your logic, you can just as well say that Epic should toss their entire bot AI out of the window, 'cause the offline players "don't need" to have a balanced game :rolleyes:

But that's beside the issue. The majority of the UT2004 players still play offline, which indicates lots of these have no connection, or a bad one -> they really benefit from a smaller download

G.Lecter
14th May 2005, 04:54 AM
I 100% agree with Taleweaver. Patches (and games) are made for everyone, not only for hardcore online players... ;)

Now let's see it from another point of view: A 1st patch is released with a few new maps in it... Nice: Every server has all those new maps and the patch...
But then a new 2nd patch with more new maps is released, and the problems begin: A patch always replaces the files from the last patch, that means I could install the second patch without having the first and play online without having the maps of the 1st patch. Servers will begin to have different lists of maps... If I want the maps of the 1st patch, I must install it, but If I install this one after the 2nd, I'll have the maps, but the game won't be patched correctly, so I'll have problems online, and I finally would have to reinstall the game with the patches installed in order... That's too confusing for some people :o, remember the games must be made for everyone...

Mr.Magnetichead
14th May 2005, 10:20 AM
I don't get what you're saying. Lots of the patches upgrade the bot AI as well to better simulate the online environment. By your logic, you can just as well say that Epic should toss their entire bot AI out of the window, 'cause the offline players "don't need" to have a balanced game :rolleyes:

But that's beside the issue. The majority of the UT2004 players still play offline, which indicates lots of these have no connection, or a bad one -> they really benefit from a smaller download


Name me 5 games that have had patches that effect bot AI to a noticable level.

I've been playing games on my PC for 9 years now and on consoles for 17.

I have NEVER played a game out of the box that was so unbalanced or had such bad AI that it needed a patch to be playable.

Patches are made for online players. If they were not you could buy them on disk.

Taleweaver
14th May 2005, 12:18 PM
Name me 5 games that have had patches that effect bot AI to a noticable level.

I've been playing games on my PC for 9 years now and on consoles for 17.

I have NEVER played a game out of the box that was so unbalanced or had such bad AI that it needed a patch to be playable.

Patches are made for online players. If they were not you could buy them on disk.
Can only name 3 that I know of...feel free to ignore the fact these are the only games I've played long enough to realise the differences between patches...
UT99: after quite some patches I had the feeling of "hey, since when do bots do X?" The most obvious one was the pressure chamber in DM-pressure. After a certain patch, the bots all started pushing those damn switches when you were inside
UT2004: bots had improved AI in just about every patch, mainly for onslaught. I think just about every offline onslaught player can confirm this
Red alert 2: once again, various AI improvements. It's still not even near human quality, but that's a different matter...
I know for a fact that at least UT2003 and starcraft made noticeable AI improvements during their patches (prob. the warcraft series as well), but I haven't experienced these myself.

As for you...I don't since when console games can be patched, but you can be damn sure it's not 17 years. I also like to point out that not all game companies improve their AI code in patches. Just that Epic does it, which is the issue here.
And just where did I made the assumption that AI was ever so bad it was unplayable without patches? :con: When I said 'improved' I actually meant...improved (omg! the simplicity).

Patches are made for online players. If they were not you could buy them on disk.
Good point, and well taken care off. Or didn't you know many game magazines deliver CD's with patches?

Mr.Magnetichead
14th May 2005, 01:04 PM
Can only name 3 that I know of...feel free to ignore the fact these are the only games I've played long enough to realise the differences between patches...
UT99: after quite some patches I had the feeling of "hey, since when do bots do X?" The most obvious one was the pressure chamber in DM-pressure. After a certain patch, the bots all started pushing those damn switches when you were inside
UT2004: bots had improved AI in just about every patch, mainly for onslaught. I think just about every offline onslaught player can confirm this
Red alert 2: once again, various AI improvements. It's still not even near human quality, but that's a different matter...
I know for a fact that at least UT2003 and starcraft made noticeable AI improvements during their patches (prob. the warcraft series as well), but I haven't experienced these myself.

As for you...I don't since when console games can be patched, but you can be damn sure it's not 17 years. I also like to point out that not all game companies improve their AI code in patches. Just that Epic does it, which is the issue here.
And just where did I made the assumption that AI was ever so bad it was unplayable without patches? :con: When I said 'improved' I actually meant...improved (omg! the simplicity).


Good point, and well taken care off. Or didn't you know many game magazines deliver CD's with patches?


UT99: The bots have always pressed the switch. I was killed by a bot on that map in the pressure chamber the first day the game was out.

UT2004: What improvments. Be specific.

Red Alert 2: Not really bots now is it.

I didn't claim that console games have been patched for 17 years. :bulb:

Taleweaver
14th May 2005, 01:54 PM
UT99: The bots have always pressed the switch. I was killed by a bot on that map in the pressure chamber the first day the game was out.

UT2004: What improvments. Be specific.

Red Alert 2: Not really bots now is it.

I didn't claim that console games have been patched for 17 years. :bulb:
Jeez, dude. Forget I ever mentioned it. You have your point of view, I have a different one. This isn't a discussion for the patch+bonus pack in one anymore, but a discussion to keep the discussion going. Sorry, but this is pointless hair-splitting (my prev post as well, I admit that), and it's not going anywhere.

No hard feeling, mate :)

Mr.Magnetichead
14th May 2005, 02:00 PM
[W H I T E C R O S S]

Kriegs-Maschine
15th May 2005, 02:19 AM
KaRnAgE']Seriously, down with bonus packs. I'm not saying down with free new content though. I'm just saying there is a better way of delivering it. How? Take a look at good ol' Counter-Strike. New maps and stuff are released through patches, that all players HAVE to downloaded. This means that all servers WILL have that content, and all players to. If you do not think this method is a good one then you are just being a straight up CS basher.

Bonus packs are a thing of the past and only prove to be an annoyance imho. I hated having to look for servers that were running ECE because alot had a bad habit of not putting it in their title. After ECE was released I didn't want to play on servers that didn't have it, but since it wasn't a mandatory update, alot of servers (at the time, I don't know how it is recently) didn't bother installing.

So rather than waiting until they have 200mb of new stuff, why not slowly feed us new content (a map or two here, a model or two there) over time? This ensures everyone has the same content and can play on any server not running custom content.

What about people with 56k? What about them!? 56kers don't play CS then? CS has WAAAAAAAY more players than any of the older UTs did, and it seems to manage just fine pushing maps through in patches rather than bonus packs.

Note: I am not saying UT should have a STEAM-like service. I am just saying new content should be pushed in PATCHES and not in seperate bonus packs that people don't have to download.


I 100% agree with you on all the line. There is so many awesome custom maps/skin but if 5% of the servers get it, its totaly useless. If there is a auto-download thing like in Steam/CS, everyone will have it, see ur skin, and we will have a lot new maps to play in all server, rather than the same 3-4 ****in map that we play all the time and gets boring very quickly, and those maps would be official which also mean played in Leagues like TWL,IGL...