You said this with regards to my having said this:
"I'll try to keep my post small, since y'all know how long-winded they can get... "
right?
Was Assault really such a flop?
I don't think either AS or BR were flops. They just didn't have a large user-base, so IMHO it is mostly a waste of resources and time for Epic to develop that. Their time is better spent polishing the rest of the game. IMHO AS, BR and other gametype variants over DM, CTF and WAR are best left to the mod community to add to the game.
I can think of one simple reason : performance.
Most people barely understand the requirements for one gametype. Telling them to place more than one in a single map would have a good chance of creating even crappier maps for the gametypes it wasn't optimized for.
I disagree. For a package structure set up with a tag format header, the time to read a single set of game type fields is very fast on today's hardware.
The benefits outweigh the lack of community knowledge.
The simple fact that a single map can be created that supports multiple game types removes the need for shipping two or three variation versions, or for community mappers to hack/modify an existing CTF into a DM version, etc.
If community mappers don't understand the multi-gametype setup, they can still create DM, CTF, etc. The current individual game prefix system could stay intact, simply add a new prefix for the multi-gametype maps. The existing WorldInfo already supports the gametype selection, so it is essentially a minor extension to the existing setup.
And as I mentioned, this technique has already been used on a shipped retail game on UE2, so it is workable, and the mapping community for that game didn't have any issues with it.
The issue you mention regarding UT and the lack of the mapping community to even get proper instagib is just indicative of the fact that a percentage of the community mappers do not understand game play and design regardless of whether multiple gametypes are integrated into a single map. The sheer number of odd and absurd mutators shows how the UT community sees and understands the standard gametype game play.
With regards to everyone commenting on my post with the ability to create maps that are cross-gametype capable, it's nice to see an agreed concensus. This type of system has been done successfully before on UE2 so there is no reason why it can't be done on UT3.
The only issue it brings up is that community mappers will have more to learn when creating multi-gametype maps. Support for DM- CTF- VCTF- WAR- and a new multi-gametype map would have to be established. And as an example a single WAR map can easily be made into a DOM/VCTF/WAR by swapping out flags for cores, and cores/nodes for dom points. One map = three supported game types.
The majority of game companies do not take actual game play and design feedback, and I understand and agree with that. You ask ten people and you get ten different responses.
I actually have a number of ideas that can be integrated into the UT3 game infrastructure without changing the core game play and without impacting the game universe. They are mostly tweaks to the general mapping/actor system and game options/control that will most likely be fully accepted by the entire community since they only strengthen the game, and all are
optional game settings that aim at things like unbalanced matches and new game features that add some depth without adding complexity.
A few people at Epic already know who I am since I have been in the Licensee area for a few years, wrote UDN tutorials, etc. Jeff or anyone else at Epic is more than welcome to PM me if they want to hear my few game ideas or integrate anything I've already mentioned, for which Epic can freely have without obligation.
Maybe one day if I ever had the time I would mod the scripts to integrate it myself, but mods/muts rarely become mainstream.