Unreal Tournament III Wishlist

[Benfica]

Sir_Brizz, I'm very glad that you are an UT3 defender. I really am. And I appreciate the effort that has been made recently on BuF by people with common sense to show a balanced view. Sorry, too little too late, that should have been started at least 1 year ago on Epic's forum. And here all the time, amongst the ones that like either UT99 or UT2004.

On my side, I am an Epic defender which is something different. Go to their forum and read my posts. I've done a great effort to BALANCE the way that people see Epic. I did the opposite of what I saw, making the positive stand out, ignoring the rest and attacking the arguments of the most obnoxious trolls.

But don't expect me to change the way I see UT3 just because now it's fashionable to praise it. The thing is, while I'm happy with the game and being UT the only game that I play, giving it a 9/10, I paid 100$ for it. This is not freeware. If for me the UI doesn't matter I will not bother to criticize it, but if I believe that the orb damages online count and makes the game unpleasant when you mix experienced and new players, I talk about it. if I don't like the game atmosphere, visual decisions and militarism I'll talk about!

I don't care if there's now a positive attitude because people are scared that the franchise ends, it's not worthwhile to develop for PC or because honestly they see it clearly now. It used to be a national sport to insult and hate Epic employees. I've learned that it's easy to hide behind a keyboard and flame other people destroying their reputation, effort and causing grief. Where was the positive and BALANCED attitude? Where were people defending UT2003?

Even if some consider that the core gameplay is great, my point stands. My wishlist is that UT3 makes a turn towards fun and casual gaming while still keeping it "enough" hardcore, with less noob bashing even if you need to change the game (change the ****ing game, not the people!), not so dull because they are scared that people called it cartoonish, and finally not influenced by today's fps tactical/military trend.

 

[elmuerte]

Epic doesn't need to be defended. They are very capable to do it themselves. Epic made some mistakes (who/what company doesn't), and they know it. There is no need to troll, flame, and beat the dead horse. Also, the mistakes Epic made are far less than people make it seam.

 

[Vitamin-Carrot]

Epic doesn't need to be defended. They are very capable to do it themselves. Epic made some mistakes (who/what company doesn't), and they know it. There is no need to troll, flame, and beat the dead horse. Also, the mistakes Epic made are far less than people make it seam.

Agreed...

The NZ players are going through the same bs and always make a huge deal out of really really small things ... they are still hung up on the whole UI thing ... seriously who cares ... i get a good game in every time im at home on my pc I have never had trouble finding a server with other players ... mind you NZ gamers are very loyal to their title of choice just look at the NZ MOHAA community 7 years on and they still play it hard out ... *cough* i used to be one of them *cough* ... just play the game is my usual response if you dont have any servers then hire one if you dont have anyone to play with then get a gf

 

[Sir_Brizz]

But don't expect me to change the way I see UT3 just because now it's fashionable to praise it. The thing is, while I'm happy with the game and being UT the only game that I play, giving it a 9/10, I payed 100$ for it. This is not freeware. If for me the UI doesn't matter I will not bother to criticize it, but if I believe that the orb damages online count and makes the game unpleasant when you mix experienced and new players, I talk about it. if I don't like the game atmosphere, visual decisions and militarism I'll talk about!

What are you talking about? WHERE is it fashionable to praise the game? I have given it some hard knocks myself, but I don't think your points 1) make sense, and 2) are accurate. Oh, and 3) removing the orb from Warfare and changing it's name to "BIGPARTYATMOES" (Abbreviation: BPAM) would increase the player counts at all.

Where was the positive and BALANCED attitude? Where were people defending UT2003?

There were a lot more people with balanced opinions in UT2003 than there are now.

Even if some consider that the core gameplay is great, my point stands. My wishlist is that UT3 makes a turn towards fun and casual gaming while still keeping it "enough" hardcore, with less noob bashing even if you need to change the game (change the ****ing game, not the people!), not so dull because they are scared that people called it cartoonish, and finally not influenced by today's fps tactical/military trend.

I wasn't saying your opinion was not your opinion. I was stating what is wrong with the points you made. And, even more, your points don't back up what you just stated in this paragraph.

I can't disagree that the lack of a tournament is annoying at best, but it shouldn't (and probably doesn't) affect the online player counts.

Anyway, I simply disagree with your points. They don't make sense.

 

[Wail of Suicide]

Even if the ball launcher was as effective and versatile as the bolas, the bolas would still be superior purely because the very concept of it is just so damn brilliant. They could have made it look even better in UE3, and implemented minor tweaks so that people like you couldn't complain about it lacking versatility. Instead they replaced it with an ugly, generic ball launcher.

I think that the Bolas were very cool in concept, but in reality they are not workable... Or at least not workable without compromising what makes it unique in the first place.
I mean, it's a weapon which gets more powerful the more you charge it up, but the more you charge it up the less usable it is. Since it spreads out horizontally, every rock, tree, post, or pole snags it, and the idea behind a bola being that it wraps around the target ... Means that the longer the thing gets the more liable it is to wrap around level geometry and not your enemies. Given UT3's levels are small as is, it's not an easy problem.
There's also the issue with it taking a few seconds to detonate, which is another reason why the weapon was so ineffective. Giving enemies the option to simply bail rather than taking the consequences of getting hit is ... Another nail in the coffin for a poor weapon design in the first place.
If you took out the charging aspect and made bola parts that hit level geometry snap off, rather than wrapping the whole thing around incidental hits... Then made it detonate on contact, you might get something workable. But it'd also be little more than a cluster of plasma projectiles at that point.

Not that I don't think the ball is dumb. It is. Shooting a giant flaming ball out of four small barrels is laughable. But at least it's an effective weapon.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The Scorpion was almost entirely useless against anything but mantas in UT2004. While I'm not positive about the changes they made to it, it at least has wider application now.

 

[Benfica]

Epic doesn't need to be defended. They are very capable to do it themselves. Epic made some mistakes (who/what company doesn't), and they know it. There is no need to troll, flame, and beat the dead horse.

They are now capable to do it. Read INA forums, read the threads locked, look at the people banned. I'm also pissed with the fact that some threads were randomly locked or deleted, that nice people were banned. But it used to be a damn nightmare!

Also, the mistakes Epic made are far less than people make it seam.

Couldn't agree more. And they could make much more mistakes, for me it wouldn't matter because I still consider UT3 a good game, support is decent, their free content and the one that comes from the community is impressive. But read below...

just play the game is my usual response if you dont have any servers then hire one if you dont have anyone to play with then get a gf

I play the game, and I have enough servers. And the gf is cool

WHERE is it fashionable to praise the game?

Now people are much more moderate, they defend the game and I'm seeing people only bringing the positive aspects. At last! OTOH what I mean is that doesn't tell the whole truth, even less on a thread talking about a wishlist

I have given it some hard knocks myself

It's interesting, I'm only doing that now. 6(?) months after release on which I barely said anything against the game because I know that Epic gives fantastic support and know how to fix things. I started to get annoyed with some aspects and tried to learn UScript to make a few fixes myself, but whatever.
But now I'm definitely changing my mind! Even though I was very glad to buy UT3 and I would do it now for the same 60€, the thing is that last week, I happened to look at the game section of a major store, and there were 3 interesting games that caught my attention. I looked at the prices, and the sum was exactly what I paid for UT3. The games are:
- Enemy Territory Quake Wars
- Team Fortress 2
- Portal
See the problem here? Some or all are fun, pleasant, cartoonish, sharp, successful, sci-fi, relaxing, colorful, up lifting, elaborate, intelligent, ideologically neutral.

Like UT99 and UT2004!

Oh, and 3) removing the orb from Warfare and changing it's name to "BIGPARTYATMOES" (Abbreviation: BPAM) would increase the player counts at all.

Lol Even more because I don't defend removing the orb. This is not black and white.

The orb makes the game unpleasant when you mix experienced and new players. This is well known, noobs don't know where to go and what to do. Not using it properly already had these consequences:
- Making people stick with UT2004
- Excessive bashing, putting some people away from online.
- Making other players that also enjoyed playing on pubs, now they only play on PUGS.
I've suggested in the past, that Epic or others started no-Orb servers, different node layout, orb distribution, etc... It would give diversity, choice. It was a ****ing uphill battle trying to convince people that 2 choices are better than one rule. I had against me closed minded people saying that everything was fine. But that same people can't stand playing on pubs because noobs don't know how to use the orb!!!

And there's this very interesting post on Epic's forum:

the focus should be on destroying the prime (core safe) and recapturing it - and NOT just with the orb. Too many new players dont think to capture a node unless they have the orb.

He is quite right: On some people's mind the orb evolved from being a "great" way to capture a node, to the "best" way and now the "only" way. This is dumb, non-creative and close-minded. Want proof?
- Spec a game of MarketDistrict. When pushed to the base, there's a line of sight to the center node. You will see 1on1 fights and orb carriers trying again and again. The node doesn't flash! Ever! It's 1on1 and Orb.
- To stop the countdown on Floodgate, I've seen top players spawning at the prime, teleporting to base, grabbing the orb and go back. Ok, fine. But the problem is that they never ever go to the flood node and go do the flak dance of death. Or just expect the orb to come and stop the countdown. I've seen the node at 10%, 5 secs and they don't fire to the node. They prefer to DM and get that frag, instead of preventing 20 points core damage. 1on1 and Orb!

About the player counts, this is his opinion with which I agree completely. It's only an opinion, but ...

I've seen SO many noobs with the orb in completely wrong places - and everyone smashes them with insults.. I wonder if half of them will ever play again, let alone have the guts to give it a go after that. (probably why sometimes the orb just sits there forever)

IMHO, the orb is not wrong, it's over-used. It degrades gameplay and enjoyment on the Downtown primes. It is frustrating on Avalanche, you can only start one, but there's an Orb from the central node each 15 secs or so. The avalanche only destroys the node, the defending team doesn't spawn there, the orb gives the node and spawn point to the attacking team. OTOH it is required for tank crossing. But use it with balance. It's good as it is for clans and scrims, it's not for the most played maps on pubs! It is degrading the game, you don't see so many people complaining because they gave the finger already!


Sorry, I will reply to the rest later, tomorrow or so.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Now people are much more moderate, they defend the game and I'm seeing people only bringing the positive aspects. At last! OTOH what I mean is that doesn't tell the whole truth, even less on a thread talking about a wishlist

I don't see that at all. The only difference between now and a few months ago is that most of the people who complained are not hanging around as much, but when they come around they are still complaining.

But now I'm definitely changing my mind! Even though I was very glad to buy UT3 and I would do it now for the same 60€, the thing is that last week, I happened to look at the game section of a major store, and there were 3 interesting games that caught my attention. I looked at the prices, and the sum was exactly what I paid for UT3.

What kind of comparison is that supposed to be? You can get UT3 for half of what you paid for it (at least) now.

See the problem here? Some or all are fun, pleasant, cartoonish, sharp, successful, sci-fi, relaxing, colorful, up lifting, elaborate, intelligent, ideologically neutral.

I would argue that none of them are each of those things. Portal is a non-comparison, it's a single player game. Sci fi multiplayer games are simply not popular right now, just look at Quake Wars. It's doing better than UT3, but it's not doing great. Even UT2004 never did that great, it was not popular by any stretch of the imagination. It still isn't.

- Making people stick with UT2004

That makes no sense at all.

- Excessive bashing, putting some people away from online.

Welcome to the world of online multiplayer games. Acting like this didn't happen in UT2004 ONS is just silly, it happened all the time.

I've suggested in the past, that Epic or others started no-Orb servers, different node layout, orb distribution, etc... It would give diversity, choice. It was a ****ing uphill battle trying to convince people that 2 choices are better than one rule. I had against me closed minded people saying that everything was fine. But that same people can't stand playing on pubs because noobs don't know how to use the orb!!!

I'm not going to disagree that Warfare still needs a lot of improvement on the gameplay front, but I believe that it is MEGATONS better than ONS gameplay.

Noobs had less of an idea what they were doing in ONS. That's why I say that ONS would be the better competitive gametype, because if you know what you are doing and coordinating well, the gameplay there is much more interesting.

On the other hand, there are things in Warfare that simply needed to be added to the core ONS gameplay to make it passable. Like the hoverboard.

He is quite right: On some people's mind the orb evolved from being a "great" way to capture a node, to the "best" way and now the "only" way. This is dumb, non-creative and close-minded.

This isn't a flaw in the gametype, this is just how people play it. You can't blame Epic for people not playing a gametype the "correct" way.

- Spec a game of MarketDistrict. When pushed to the base, there's a line of sight to the center node. You will see 1on1 fights and orb carriers trying again and again. The node doesn't flash! Ever! It's 1on1 and Orb.
- To stop the countdown on Floodgate, I've seen top players spawning at the prime, teleporting to base, grabbing the orb and go back. Ok, fine. But the problem is that they never ever go to the flood node and go do the flak dance of death. Or just expect the orb to come and stop the countdown. I've seen the node at 10%, 5 secs and they don't fire to the node. They prefer to DM and get that frag, instead of preventing 20 points core damage. 1on1 and Orb!

I see people making stupid mistakes in every gametype. People did the same thing in ONS on pubs, they would rather DM it out with someone that they see running by then take care of capturing/defending nodes. But again, it's not Epic's fault that people on pubs don't play the gametype the way that you think it should be played.

IMHO, the orb is not wrong, it's over-used. It degrades gameplay and enjoyment on the Downtown primes. It is frustrating on Avalanche, you can only start one, but there's an Orb from the central node each 15 secs or so. The avalanche only destroys the node, the defending team doesn't spawn there, the orb gives the node and spawn point to the attacking team. OTOH it is required for tank crossing. But use it with balance. It's good as it is for clans and scrims, it's not for the most played maps on pubs! It is degrading the game, you don't see so many people complaining because they gave the finger already!

I just don't see what makes you think that the orb in Warfare is why people don't play UT3. That's like saying people don't play UT3 because the menu is red and they wanted black instead.

The fact is, the low player counts are mostly to blame on the basic gametypes, DM and CTF. There is literally never more than 20 people playing CTF at any given time. There is rarely more than 100 people playing DM. These were/are two populated gametypes in UT2004 (aside from TAM). Warfare always has the most people playing it, along with VCTF. I think it's safe to say that the orb is probably at the bottom of most people's lists of why to not play UT3, if it is even on there at all.

Also, don't forget that both UT2003 and UT2004 were cross compatible with the demo players and servers, so some percentage of their playerbases came/comes from demo playing.

 

[MonsOlympus]

See the problem here? Some or all are fun, pleasant, cartoonish, sharp, successful, sci-fi, relaxing, colorful, up lifting, elaborate, intelligent, ideologically neutral.

I would argue that none of them are each of those things. Portal is a non-comparison, it's a single player game. Sci fi multiplayer games are simply not popular right now, just look at Quake Wars. It's doing better than UT3, but it's not doing great. Even UT2004 never did that great, it was not popular by any stretch of the imagination. It still isn't.

I would like to touch on this, Quake Wars while having a scifi element does share alittle in common with ummz dare I say tactical games like battlefield or call of duty. Actually modern warfare is probably a better way to put it, infact even 2k4 had alittle of it rubbing off as you could tell the old bender was a hummer kinda deal and the whole new wave thunder crash had camo's instead of a more flat green. It was however still scifi and cartoons.

Anyways Quake Wars also has perks like which popular game atm, sure they only stick around for the duration of the match but I would guess these are something people like atm. For some reason the modern warfare just wont go out of fashion, I guess its because there is always a new bit of prototype tech or field test material people can use to put in a game.

When I watch the bad company flicks I think what the... Is this Team Fortress 2 with new a modern battlefield setting, I mean I like comedy as much as the next person and it could be a kewl game but its just a play on an existing idea. I guess Quake Wars has the strogg, the ikarus is a pretty kewl idea, reminds me alot of tribes hoonin around in that thing with the mortar. Then again Tribes V didnt do too well either, neither did Quake 4 for that matter.

Even in the latest Gears 2 interview I saw Mr B, had to say no perks, infact he emphasized it!

Maybe people just dont want the strick 1 weapon set, 1 strick hitbox size anymore perhaps they want upgrade even if they arnt exactly upgrades but more sidegrades depending on your play style like TF2. Maybe its time to give gamers alittle more credit and make things alittle deeper, for me Warfare was a step in the right direction since it introduced asymmetrical balance between vehicles. Infact thats probably a first for a UT game to do it by default so you can see times are changing, people realize things can be asymmetrically balanced and still be competitive.

Perhaps though there is a crowd hanging onto the old ways where everything is tit for tat. Honestly I dont mind either way, I think it would be kewl if Epic added some things optional though to see if they can appeal more to the player classes, team weapon sets type market...

Then again they have Gears which does seem to appeal to the ummz, Warfare market cause you know its not all modern



and ofcoarse UC or UC2 didnt fair so well, so who knows!

 

[Benfica]

I don't see that at all.

You operate on write only mode

What kind of comparison is that supposed to be? You can get UT3 for half of what you paid for it (at least) now.

I'm not comparing prices. Just saying that UT3 misses a lot of stuff that these games provide.

I would argue that none of them are each of those things. Portal is a non-comparison, it's a single player game. Sci fi multiplayer games are simply not popular right now, just look at Quake Wars. It's doing better than UT3, but it's not doing great. Even UT2004 never did that great, it was not popular by any stretch of the imagination. It still isn't.

You talk about 2 aspects out of 12. That's a bit different than none.

That makes no sense at all.

Well, you can discuss with a lot of people the influence of the orb for not caring about the game. Death Warrant, }TCP{, Titan32, ZeroFrag and others ...

But from here ...

- Excessive bashing, putting some people away from online.

Welcome to the world of online multiplayer games. Acting like this didn't happen in UT2004 ONS is just silly, it happened all the time.
I'm not going to disagree that Warfare still needs a lot of improvement on the gameplay front, but I believe that it is MEGATONS better than ONS gameplay.

Noobs had less of an idea what they were doing in ONS. That's why I say that ONS would be the better competitive gametype, because if you know what you are doing and coordinating well, the gameplay there is much more interesting.
...

... to basically the end of your post I don't know if there's much point to go on, because I have no clue how your excessive focus on "UT3 vs UT2004", ONS limitations, CTF popularity, etc... can be a reply to this:

I've suggested in the past, that Epic or others started no-Orb servers, different node layout, orb distribution, etc... It would give diversity, choice. It was a ****ing uphill battle trying to convince people that 2 choices are better than one rule. I had against me closed minded people saying that everything was fine. But that same people can't stand playing on pubs because noobs don't know how to use the orb!!!

 

[Justing]

Unreal tournament 99 psychics mod.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

You talk about 2 aspects out of 12. That's a bit different than none.

Because one of those aspects is clearly the core of your point: Sci fi games are still popular. I disagreed, they aren't.

Portal is an ambiguity. I'm willing to be people like the puzzling aspect of it more than the fact that it is all sci fi. The gameplay makes up for everything else.

And single player sci fi games are not going out of style quite yet, people just don't play sci fi games online.

... to basically the end of your post I don't know if there's much point to go on, because I have no clue how your excessive focus on "UT3 vs UT2004", ONS limitations, CTF popularity, etc... can be a reply to this:

Because the Orb is essentially the only thing differing Warfare from ONS. Yes, there are other changes, but the orb is the one that affects the gameplay the most. You want the orb removed, well that would pretty much bring Warfare back to Onslaught, and that gametype was at least as flawed as Warfare is. As sad as it is, the gameplay in both of them needs major fixing, but Warfare is at least a step in the right direction.

And what else am I meant to compare Warfare to? It's not like gametypes in other games.

My comment about CTF popularity (really, all gametypes popularity) is only talking about where the low player numbers are really showing through.

]I don't think that's entirely true. Based on my experiences with friends in LAN matches, the orb has often been the reason behind them giving up on UT3, and asking for a switch to UT2004.

And personally, I don't think the orb has an very positive effect on gameplay. I can see the logic behind it, and I applaud EPIC for attempting to improve on what was onslaught, however in fixing one issue, I believe they have created another.

I really don't understand why. In UT3 it's the ord, in UT2004 it's getting vehicle stomped. And if you can't deal with the orb, the likelihood is that you are getting vehicle stomped anyway.

The reality is, both teams have an orb. If someone is aggravating you with theirs, then start taking yours and aggravate them. What I notice a lot on pubs is that the orb often stays out of play on most maps because it is clear back at the core. Avalanche is one of the worst I see for this even though the orb gets brought up to the middle, most of the people in the server spawn at the primary node to attack the center and never go get the orb.

 

[Benfica]

You want the orb removed, well that would pretty much bring Warfare back to Onslaught

For the 3rd time (God bless copy&paste):

Originally Posted by Benfica
I've suggested in the past, that Epic or others started no-Orb servers, different node layout, orb distribution, etc... It would give diversity, choice. It was a ****ing uphill battle trying to convince people that 2 choices are better than one rule.

These are my offline maps, node layouts and orb distributions:

 

[JohnDoe641]

My UT3 wish list:

CyM

 

[Benfica]

Based on this post: http://forums.beyondunreal.com/showpost.php?p=2121844&postcount=137 , try this offline when already playing a map:

set postprocessvolume settings (bloom_scale=0.3, scene_desaturation=0.1, DOF_MaxNearBlurAmount=0.3, DOF_MaxFarBlurAmount=0.3 )

Play a bit with the values if you like. End result: the game looks much better, just like you see on those older promotional screenshots.

For my wishlist: make that work online, let people adjust as they please.

 

[XeroWolf]

This is not aimed at anybody in particular but can we get back to more wishing and less whining please?

So anyway I was trying out a new custom part I made last night and noticed something odd. We can have custom players but that there's no way add customized bots in a match. Of course I could I create customized bots by using the custom character .ini but there is no way of doing it from within the game itself. It's really a pain to have to go into the .inis every time I want to add a bot with a different variation of custom parts. I think it would be a nice addition to the feature set.

 

[Vitamin-Carrot]

maybe you could have a chat with snake and see if it can be done via uwin2

 

[Nereid]

oh one big thing though... WHERE IS ASSUALT

I'd be happy to resume work on Assault if I was convinced that there would be more than about 2 people who actually play it.

 

[MonsOlympus]

Yeah itd probably end up at race maps again wouldnt it? One thing I wouldnt mind seeing is a few turrets in vCTF but hey

 

[Vitamin-Carrot]

deployable