Conquest was there until Epic changed the title to UT3, am I right? And several new weapons have been removed too AFAIK.
Conquest was there until Epic changed the title to UT3, am I right? And several new weapons have been removed too AFAIK.
I think you are being a bit harsh there Bersy.....Warfare is not ONS + AS, it is a bad replica of ONS with an orb. It is not (as) fun (as it should be). Warfare should incorporate unique objectives as originally described. It should not always need cores or an orb, but any combination of the above with AS, or even pure AS....
Didn't know 2k4 ONS matches could last for so long... never been an usual ONS player tbh... From the first info that was given, Conquest games were expected to last even longer, and resource management and the commander role are things I don't really see happening in a UT game. The couple of things you mentioned are actually interesting though...ONS & AS matches already last up to 2 hours in UT2004. What Conquest proposed was not longer matches, but matches in which the outcome would affect the way the next one plays. That was an exciting prospect because it would have made the game much more dynamic and unpredictable. Same with the ability to destroy terrain...
You're not alone! :tup:Entr0p1cLqd said:To finish on a positive note, I much prefer the stock maps in UT3 than I ever did in 2K3/2K4. And the weapon balance; I really like the weapon balance in UT3 (yeah I know I'm probably alone ... but I like it).
I'd say the real problem is that Epic doesen't just view the UT series as games, but as playable tech demo's and test beds for their new engines...
Wow, their ignorance is bigger then I thought in that case.
But I do agree that it was a shame that some of the ideas behind conquest never made it. Having the next map depend on the outcome of the current one was a great idea; it's a shame they never pulled it off.
- The UT2004 floaty player and hitscan should never come back.
- Game types like AS and BR should be gone, they are wasted time implementing them for the amount of actual players. UT should concentrate on DM, CTF and WAR/ONS, and add DOM into the interchangeable game mode system.
- Maps need the ability to be interchangeable between any game mode, as specified by the mapper in the World properties. Game assets such as Flags, Cores/Nodes or DOM points should simply be hidden when the map is played in DM, etc. This would increase the number of maps available significantly. The level designer would simply specify which game modes are supported on their map, insert the appropriate class actors, etc. CTF map layouts usually play well as DOM and vice-versa, WAR maps can easily have the Cores/Nodes changed out to DOM points and still play well.
- WAR/ONS(/DOM) maps, especially larger ones, should allow for additional abilities such as: player counts up to 32 or 64 as defined for the map size; player classes that have varying abilities such as ground-speed and inventory item carrying ability, armor, etc.; Core/Node/DOM point enable/disable and overall map "area" based on player count; actual deployable items (medical, weapon, sensor) in addition to the fixed-location weapon lockers, etc.; troop vehicles and water-based vehicles.
Oh, I'm certain they have the ability to do it. The issue is whether they have the desire to make a real UT99-2.
Does Epic even want to be contacted?
I'd like to see a UT4 that had almost the exact same game play and feel as UT99--the tried and true, most successful original UT--with the game modes of UT 2004--DM, CTF, UT99 DOM, Bombing Run, no-impact-hammer or weapons boost Assault, Invasion-RPG, and most importantly, Onslaught combined with an exceptional user interface and server browser along with a nice, built-in IRC browser.
I'd like to never see anything from UT2004.
My thought is that if Epic has any interest in continuing the UT franchise, they should keep council with some people in the community who have a thorough understanding of the series and how to strengthen it.. both in terms of bringing back some coherence to it design & storywise, as well as attracting a new player base. Epic obviously knows how to make games, but UT is a special thing with a history that dates back nearly to the beginning of true 3d first person shooters. So it means many things to many people. I am sure it does to Epic too, yet true greatness in any UT since the first has managed to elude them. I think that is because they know it primarily from a developer perspective that includes a lot of gameplay and character/level design philosophy, but lack a focused outside perspective.
The feedback they do get from the community gives them a lot of mixed messages. Which is obviously frustrating.
Here is an outline of what I think are the biggest issues which need to be addressed and would be seen as a "return to form" for Unreal Tournament.
<lotsa good stuff here>.
I'll try to keep my post small, since y'all know how long-winded they can get...
I don't really agree. Having been in the licensee area since early 2006 I've seen the content supplied with the actual "tech demos". Plus GoW was released prior to UT3, so by that type of reasoning, as the first game on the new engine it should have been the "tech demo", right? Who makes a tech demo after they have already shipped games on it?
Plus look at most other recent games. After three years I still can't get BF2142 to run stable, with its random crashing and failing. FEAR by today's standards doesn't even come close to UT3's visual look. Crysis has speed issues for everyone, the gameplay is same-old same-old (FarCry 1.1). Etc. UT3 is not as bad overall as so many people make it out to be. I'm not stating that it is perfect, popular or the servers are full, just that a lot of the overall trashing it gets is unwarranted in comparison to the list of issues also with other current games.
As was stated, this is most likely urban legend. I know of no case that this is true.
In the case of closing/deletion/banning on the Epic forums, 99.99% of the time I personally agree with the actions taken for the threads in question, since they almost never do anything to further discussion or help the community. "Free speech" doesn't mean that everyone should have the right to be an annoying whiner over usually trivial things or personal opinion, especially in a forum where we've all heard all of this before.
Many of you probably already know my feelings on where UT should move to.
- The UT2004 floaty player and hitscan should never come back.
- Game types like AS and BR should be gone, they are wasted time implementing them for the amount of actual players. UT should concentrate on DM, CTF and WAR/ONS, and add DOM into the interchangeable game mode system.
- Maps need the ability to be interchangeable between any game mode, as specified by the mapper in the World properties. Game assets such as Flags, Cores/Nodes or DOM points should simply be hidden when the map is played in DM, etc. This would increase the number of maps available significantly. The level designer would simply specify which game modes are supported on their map, insert the appropriate class actors, etc. CTF map layouts usually play well as DOM and vice-versa, WAR maps can easily have the Cores/Nodes changed out to DOM points and still play well.
- WAR/ONS(/DOM) maps, especially larger ones, should allow for additional abilities such as: player counts up to 32 or 64 as defined for the map size; player classes that have varying abilities such as ground-speed and inventory item carrying ability, armor, etc.; Core/Node/DOM point enable/disable and overall map "area" based on player count; actual deployable items (medical, weapon, sensor) in addition to the fixed-location weapon lockers, etc.; troop vehicles and water-based vehicles.
and maybe that's because all those people are so upset/disappointed with the game, that they just don't play it as much as they normally would...and if the game was better they wouldn't be making those posts, and in fact they WOULD be in the servers more often...but hey that's just the logical explanation to what you said
There is no possible path a developer can take that can preserve the entire fanbase of their past titles. You'd have to be naive to think otherwise. All I am saying is that there are people who have something Epic themselves sort of lack, being a well rounded fan perspective. There are many voices, UT99 players, 2k3 players, 2k4 players, UT3 players, clanners, modders. All want different things. There are also people who have experience in all those areas. Obviously I'm not the only one. I'm well versed on your opinions about community involvement in game development, btw. My perspective: it's not that the community has got too involved to this point, that's not the problem at all. It's that the involvement has been trite at best (almost by nature, really) and as such taken with a grain of salt, even when good points are made.Bersy, the points you made above are guaranteed to both bring people in and drive people away, which is exactly what has continuously been happening in the series.
that's all i need to see in order for your post to be made of win1. Focus on the Tournament, not a war.
That's an intelligent idea.i dont know if they need to sit with more community members in an informal setting and take comments & feedback but thats a great idea and it sure wouldnt hurt. Epic knows who the ppl are that care about and support the series as opposed to those who are just on the forums to whine and troll. i'm sure they could come up with a good list and send a private survey around.
That's all I was saying.There is no possible path a developer can take that can preserve the entire fanbase of their past titles. You'd have to be naive to think otherwise.
As I said on IRC, this is typically the best way to shoot yourself in the foot. Trying to cater your game to anyone outside of your company will cause you to either lose focus on your vision or get a seriously bad case of feature creep.All I am saying is that there are people who have something Epic themselves sort of lack, being a well rounded fan perspective.
While it is a good idea in theory ... it also has the distinct disadvantage that it focusses too much on an elite group of gamers that already are fans of the game/series.Epic has always taeken feedback ...
i dont know if they need to sit with more community members in an informal setting and take comments & feedback but thats a great idea and it sure wouldnt hurt....
I couldn't have said it better myself....
the real explanation is that most interweb forumers are whiney lil bitchy you know whats, who would rather cry about something in a forum and try to sound cool than admit they might have outgrown unreal and are still hanging around a forum cause theyd rather be here than trolling myspace... ...
- The UT2004 floaty player and hitscan should never come back.
- Game types like AS and BR should be gone, they are wasted time implementing them for the amount of actual players.
- Maps need the ability to be interchangeable between any game mode, as specified by the mapper in the World properties. Game assets such as Flags, Cores/Nodes or DOM points should simply be hidden when the map is played in DM, etc. This would increase the number of maps available significantly. The level designer would simply specify which game modes are supported on their map, insert the appropriate class actors, etc. CTF map layouts usually play well as DOM and vice-versa, WAR maps can easily have the Cores/Nodes changed out to DOM points and still play well.
And the argument that UT3 is too fast-paced to play large world WAR/Conquest styles with the types of features I mentioned needs to go and play Tribes 2 or T:V. Or have a look at the large ONS clans like TitanONS with 32-player games on maps with 9 to 13 Nodes.
The people who claim to have a thorough understanding of the series and how to strengthen it typically don't have any idea what they are talking about. And even if they do, there is NOBODY that knows how to strengthen the community, you can only speculate as to how that can be accomplished.
I'll try to keep my post small, since y'all know how long-winded they can get...
I don't really agree. Having been in the licensee area since early 2006 I've seen the content supplied with the actual "tech demos". Plus GoW was released prior to UT3, so by that type of reasoning, as the first game on the new engine it should have been the "tech demo", right? Who makes a tech demo after they have already shipped games on it?
Plus look at most other recent games. After three years I still can't get BF2142 to run stable, with its random crashing and failing. FEAR by today's standards doesn't even come close to UT3's visual look. Crysis has speed issues for everyone, the gameplay is same-old same-old (FarCry 1.1). Etc. UT3 is not as bad overall as so many people make it out to be. I'm not stating that it is perfect, popular or the servers are full, just that a lot of the overall trashing it gets is unwarranted in comparison to the list of issues also with other current games.
As was stated, this is most likely urban legend. I know of no case that this is true.
In the case of closing/deletion/banning on the Epic forums, 99.99% of the time I personally agree with the actions taken for the threads in question, since they almost never do anything to further discussion or help the community. "Free speech" doesn't mean that everyone should have the right to be an annoying whiner over usually trivial things or personal opinion, especially in a forum where we've all heard all of this before.
Many of you probably already know my feelings on where UT should move to.
- The UT2004 floaty player and hitscan should never come back.
- Game types like AS and BR should be gone, they are wasted time implementing them for the amount of actual players. UT should concentrate on DM, CTF and WAR/ONS, and add DOM into the interchangeable game mode system.
- Maps need the ability to be interchangeable between any game mode, as specified by the mapper in the World properties. Game assets such as Flags, Cores/Nodes or DOM points should simply be hidden when the map is played in DM, etc. This would increase the number of maps available significantly. The level designer would simply specify which game modes are supported on their map, insert the appropriate class actors, etc. CTF map layouts usually play well as DOM and vice-versa, WAR maps can easily have the Cores/Nodes changed out to DOM points and still play well.
- WAR/ONS(/DOM) maps, especially larger ones, should allow for additional abilities such as: player counts up to 32 or 64 as defined for the map size; player classes that have varying abilities such as ground-speed and inventory item carrying ability, armor, etc.; Core/Node/DOM point enable/disable and overall map "area" based on player count; actual deployable items (medical, weapon, sensor) in addition to the fixed-location weapon lockers, etc.; troop vehicles and water-based vehicles.
And the argument that UT3 is too fast-paced to play large world WAR/Conquest styles with the types of features I mentioned needs to go and play Tribes 2 or T:V. Or have a look at the large ONS clans like TitanONS with 32-player games on maps with 9 to 13 Nodes.
Conquest was supposed to bring that back I think.Better yet, a neat idea, if they have the rights to do it, would be to make a game mode similar to U2's XMP. XMP is a wonderful game mode that, unfortunately, came out too little, too late, and was killed off nearly as quickly as it came out.
To this day, XMP and TF2 are the only class-based shooters I can stand to play and enjoy.
Yes indeed. I never understood why they didn't change that in UT3 apart from having to maybe read the map file to find out what game types it supported as opposed to simply using a filename filter....Maps need the ability to be interchangeable between any game mode, as specified by the mapper in the World properties. Game assets such as Flags, Cores/Nodes or DOM points should simply be hidden when the map is played in DM, etc. This would increase the number of maps available significantly. The level designer would simply specify which game modes are supported on their map, insert the appropriate class actors, etc. CTF map layouts usually play well as DOM and vice-versa, WAR maps can easily have the Cores/Nodes changed out to DOM points and still play well....
+1 to that. I loved 4 team DOM and TDM in UT....Not limiting team colours to red/blue would be another one I can think of and not limiting maps to 2 teams could give UT an edge other games simply dont have. If you have Dom points or flags which popup per gametype its also possible for a mapper to block off routes with meshes or blocking volumes which is dependant on team count or gametype also.
....For eg XL maps or bigger versions of maps would simply be doors shut, it would always load the same map, you could even have an alarm with flashing lights which open a map up once a certain playercount has been hit....
You sure they had focus to begin with?Trying to cater your game to anyone outside of your company will cause you to either lose focus on your vision or get a seriously bad case of feature creep.