RA:UT's lack of self damage made it mad gimmicky to me. It was a fun warm up, but I couldn't get into it beyond that. That and the slower weapon switch, really didn't benefit as much for spawning loaded, or the NI (No Items) game play.
Core Game modes?
- Thread starter Hunter
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
I like TAM and CTF, but I want to see ONS fixed. ONS is the reason I even came to play UT.
ONS is fun, but it's really flawed. It always became of stalemate battle at a single node. I think they need to rethink how nodes are easily built and easily destroyed. I'd rather see a team have to stand in an area in order to capture a node instead of just running over one. It should focus on DM and not spamming a floating sphere.
ONS is fun, but it's really flawed. It always became of stalemate battle at a single node. I think they need to rethink how nodes are easily built and easily destroyed. I'd rather see a team have to stand in an area in order to capture a node instead of just running over one. It should focus on DM and not spamming a floating sphere.
The only thing I liked more was not being stranded on foot somewhere because of the hoverboards. The orb was only as good as the player holding it. Otherwise it was pretty much the same thing. Team A builds node, Team B destroys node, Team B builds node halfway, Team A destroys node, etc, etc, etc,. Meanwhile there's an entire map not even being used because everyone is at a single node going back and forth over and over again.
I'd much rather a team build a node by staying alive and the other team only getting that node by killing the other team and staying alive. That would mean people would have to fight each other instead of aiming up at a node. In other words, remove the node from being the target and make the other team the target. It would be king of the hill style, if Team A has 3 alive and Team B has 2, Team A starts building the checkpoint.
I'd also remove the core and make the match end once one team has all the nodes and kills the other team's member once one last time. A comeback would only be possible if the defending team somehow killed the attacking team long enough to get a primary node back without dying.
Wasn't that kind of the point of the orb? So you didn't have to down the node, and the defense, you could just orb the node, and down the defense, or down the defense and take the node immediately s they don't spawn in your face again?
It's funny to hear you say "Meanwhile there's an entire map not even being used because everyone is at a single node going back and forth over and over again" because the concentration of action was one of my favorite things about WAR.
Granted, a lot of people didn't know how to use orbs, but that's pubbin'. It wasn't hard to advance your cause if you camped it.
It's funny to hear you say "Meanwhile there's an entire map not even being used because everyone is at a single node going back and forth over and over again" because the concentration of action was one of my favorite things about WAR.
Granted, a lot of people didn't know how to use orbs, but that's pubbin'. It wasn't hard to advance your cause if you camped it.
Every time an orb carrier showed up it was like the player had a big "SHOOT ME" sign on his back. Even if he managed to cap the node the other team was still just sitting there ready take it down again. It would have been different if the freshly built node was shielded for a lengthy time to make both teams move on, but it wasn't. The other team would just stick around and wait for the shield to go away even if it made more sense to go somewhere else. Even if it was shielded for like 10 minutes you would still see a player trying to shoot it. That's the fundamental problem, people didn't know how to progress in an efficient way in ONS/Warfare.
The majority are just pubbin'. If they get confused and angry they leave and the game fails. If you switch it to just killing the enemy everyone will get how to play it instead of trying to figure out the specific rules of orbs, nodes and cores.
All I'm suggesting is switching from a stationary target like a node ball to a moving target, the enemy players. You would still have to go to a specific location to cap something. I like concentrated action too, but I'd rather duel with someone than stand on the side of a hill and shoot at a node. I just basically want to change how nodes are captured not remove nodes entirely.
The majority are just pubbin'. If they get confused and angry they leave and the game fails. If you switch it to just killing the enemy everyone will get how to play it instead of trying to figure out the specific rules of orbs, nodes and cores.
All I'm suggesting is switching from a stationary target like a node ball to a moving target, the enemy players. You would still have to go to a specific location to cap something. I like concentrated action too, but I'd rather duel with someone than stand on the side of a hill and shoot at a node. I just basically want to change how nodes are captured not remove nodes entirely.
I've played a number of games that have the same kind of lattice and assault mechanics. Red Orchestra and Planetside are two good examples. I'm convinced that the problems with Onslaught can't be fixed in an arena shooter. These games work due to the pace. They have fronts and extended fights over a control point. This just doesn't work well in arena fps games fir the same reasons assault and domination were not popular. I'm convinced that to do Onslaught properly you need a new game that isn't an arena shooter.
And by the way if you are an Onslaught fan you have to try Planetside.
And by the way if you are an Onslaught fan you have to try Planetside.
I'd like to see DM/TDM/CTF/Assault initially and then vCTF and WAR.
And have a community made or later release of Greed.
Assault IMHO sould be closer to UT1 than UT2004. You shouldn't need to watch a 4 minute video to know how to play the map. Objectives should be destroy a control panel or flip a switch, etc. not stand in 1 spot for 20 seconds.
And have a community made or later release of Greed.
Assault IMHO sould be closer to UT1 than UT2004. You shouldn't need to watch a 4 minute video to know how to play the map. Objectives should be destroy a control panel or flip a switch, etc. not stand in 1 spot for 20 seconds.
I played Onslaught constantly for something like 2.5 years. I don't think there was anything wrong with Onslaught, besides the typical problems of UT2004 (Hitscan required to play) and some poor map / vehicle design. Warfare didn't learn anything about what made Onslaught fun, and on the other hand they didn't do anything unique or interesting like add Squad/Class loadouts and all that Battlefield-esque stuff on the other extreme. It really struck a middle ground that I think didn't please either the UT2004 fans who liked how Onslaught integrated vehicles into the UT2004 footsoldier gameplay, and didn't fit in with expectations of the general public on how large-scale vehicle gameplay should work.
My vote goes similar to everyone else. Start with DM, TDM, and CTF. Beyond that we can discuss things.
I liked BR really well, but I agree, that it was more of a pain to look for weapons and then go after the ball. I always played it with Instagib rifle, made it more centered on the ball. I'll agree as well, that it works well on CTF maps, and wouldn't take much extra design.
As for ONS, I liked it, but again I'll agree that it ended up being a bit of a stalemate on one node. Never played UT3, although I did nab in on Steam the other day, and I'll give it a run through, so no opinion on WAR yet. However, with complaints about ONS being too centered on one area of the map while the rest is ignored, why not set up like a large scale Domination match? Instead of 1-3 control points, have 6-10 spread out. None are linked together so the area of battle shifts more rapidly than ONS did.
I also see the point that vehicles don't fit in the Unreal style gameplay. While ONS was fun, being on foot sucked no matter where you were. Alone? Well, you're really alone, have fun running. In the thick of the fight? While it was fun to take out a Manta with a flak cannon at close range, the tank sitting a mile away one shotting you was not fun.
This could be tied back in with an expansion of Domination. 6-10 (or more) control points in a relatively large map, no vehicles, but allows for more players. Not sure if anyone here played Alliance Battles in Guild Wars 1, but I'm picturing something along those lines. Capping a point isn't immediate, has to be drained, then filled, not too long, but long enough that it can be defended. Strategies could involve someone staying behind to defend, but risk getting overwhelmed by superior numbers. However to have superior numbers at a node, you would have to leave another vulnerable. Getting kills contribute to score, but holding points would be more effective.
I liked BR really well, but I agree, that it was more of a pain to look for weapons and then go after the ball. I always played it with Instagib rifle, made it more centered on the ball. I'll agree as well, that it works well on CTF maps, and wouldn't take much extra design.
As for ONS, I liked it, but again I'll agree that it ended up being a bit of a stalemate on one node. Never played UT3, although I did nab in on Steam the other day, and I'll give it a run through, so no opinion on WAR yet. However, with complaints about ONS being too centered on one area of the map while the rest is ignored, why not set up like a large scale Domination match? Instead of 1-3 control points, have 6-10 spread out. None are linked together so the area of battle shifts more rapidly than ONS did.
I also see the point that vehicles don't fit in the Unreal style gameplay. While ONS was fun, being on foot sucked no matter where you were. Alone? Well, you're really alone, have fun running. In the thick of the fight? While it was fun to take out a Manta with a flak cannon at close range, the tank sitting a mile away one shotting you was not fun.
This could be tied back in with an expansion of Domination. 6-10 (or more) control points in a relatively large map, no vehicles, but allows for more players. Not sure if anyone here played Alliance Battles in Guild Wars 1, but I'm picturing something along those lines. Capping a point isn't immediate, has to be drained, then filled, not too long, but long enough that it can be defended. Strategies could involve someone staying behind to defend, but risk getting overwhelmed by superior numbers. However to have superior numbers at a node, you would have to leave another vulnerable. Getting kills contribute to score, but holding points would be more effective.
If ONS/WAR is to work, Epic need to take a serious look at games like Battlefield 1943, which work well with a similar number of players. Important things to note are that foot mounted players are disadvantaged versus vehicles, but the layout of the maps allowed on foot players to traverse the world between nodes without being overly exposed all the time, as well as hassling vehicles. The vehicles were pretty powerful, but their implementation limited how they could use that power - as an example a tank was pretty slow to react to an on-foot aggressor, or the aircraft had difficult spotting on-foot players.
Important things to note would be link comlexity changes for different player loads.
Battle field maps scaled down when they didn't have enough players. Maps boundaries would focus down on less control points when less players were connected.
The problem with ONS, especially when seeding a server, is the fact that 3v3 can turn into "cap the unguarded nodes" game. If the nodes links say, stayed linear with lower players counts (8 or less) then started branching out to other nodes when more players joined, combined with a squad system where a commander could give orders to guard or attack nodes, or paths, then it would make more sense in pubs.
Larger games in their current state are a complete crap shoot now, which just begs for a group of friends or clan with a VOIP to join, and run the server.
Battle field maps scaled down when they didn't have enough players. Maps boundaries would focus down on less control points when less players were connected.
The problem with ONS, especially when seeding a server, is the fact that 3v3 can turn into "cap the unguarded nodes" game. If the nodes links say, stayed linear with lower players counts (8 or less) then started branching out to other nodes when more players joined, combined with a squad system where a commander could give orders to guard or attack nodes, or paths, then it would make more sense in pubs.
Larger games in their current state are a complete crap shoot now, which just begs for a group of friends or clan with a VOIP to join, and run the server.
I named 1943 for a reason - it has a player count that is consistent with what you would expect with UT and it has maps that are of a scale consistent with what you would expect from ONS/WAR. It had a limited squad system, but needed no commander.
The game worked well, you just have to seriously consider map layouts and how you implement vehicles versus infantry. The trouble with UTs vehicles is that they are generally too combat versatile.
The game worked well, you just have to seriously consider map layouts and how you implement vehicles versus infantry. The trouble with UTs vehicles is that they are generally too combat versatile.
Core GT's..
Free for all: DM
This could be expanded to TDM, instagibs, and Duels and so on.
For Teams: XMP
Proper Teamgames need more love. XMP would be the optimal choise as it combines elements from CTF, DOM, ONS and AS. It has classes and resource management.
A simpler solution would be CTF (, Assault and Domination [UT1 style, the kind that ends!]).
Free for all: DM
This could be expanded to TDM, instagibs, and Duels and so on.
For Teams: XMP
Proper Teamgames need more love. XMP would be the optimal choise as it combines elements from CTF, DOM, ONS and AS. It has classes and resource management.
A simpler solution would be CTF (, Assault and Domination [UT1 style, the kind that ends!]).
I couldn't have said it better myself. Since this is not only a new UT but also a free game, it will attract many new players. And I'd rather not have those players spread out over all sorts of completely different gametypes which ends up in communities that are barely connected (or not at all). They'll know those game modes are coming, and with any luck they'll stick around once mappers start to contribute community maps.
And yeah...I like BR as well (very much, in fact), but I'd rather have the community build this so that epic can focus on the core gameplay aspects.