Should Epic repeat the 2k3 -> 2k4 history again to save UT3?

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

Conquest was there until Epic changed the title to UT3, am I right? And several new weapons have been removed too AFAIK.

 

[Raynor.Z]

Conquest was there until Epic changed the title to UT3, am I right? And several new weapons have been removed too AFAIK.

Conquest was scrapped long before UT2007 was renamed to UT3. However there was also some weapons that got mentioned in previews but were't in final game - Ion Cannon (was supposed to control level-specific hazards) and Canister Gun.. Also the Stealth Bender was a vehicle mentioned many times, but was cut from retail game.

 

[Entr0p1cLqd]

....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....

I think you are being a bit harsh there Bersy.

The orb does adds something to ONS that was lacking; and provides a bit of pace. I would miss it now if it was taken out. Having said that, I would agree that not all maps need an orb to work well (in fact you don't need to include one in a map at all anyway).

My feeling is that Epic were so determined to keep the action focused at a particular point on the map that they completely forgot that some of the fun of ONS was being able to cut-off th other team's linked nodes with an outflanking maneuver. The linear linking of the UT3 standard maps means that some of the tactics that used to add something to the game are simply no longer there.

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.

I could go on, but there's nothing I want to say that I haven't said before in other threads at other times. When I play UT3 I do enjoy the game (apart from the taunts that is). But equally I'm not so blind that I don't think, "Shame, if only they'd put a bit more thought/time into this bit; it would have been really good".

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).

 

[G.Lecter]

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...

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...

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).

You're not alone! :tup:

 

[DGUnreal]

I'll try to keep my post small, since y'all know how long-winded they can get...

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...

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.

Wow, their ignorance is bigger then I thought in that case.

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.

 

[Gambit84]

Im willing to bet that the 360 will renew some interest in the pc title. Hell, a year out they can pull a modded rerelease like like halflife did. May encourage more to jump on.

 

[MonsOlympus]

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.

This is a big one for me also, if UT3 did it then TF2 wouldnt have got all the credit for that idea. Honestly I think Epic made a big mistake not making a series of matches feel larger than just a series of matches, it would have kept people on servers longer instead of just till the end of a map, no doubt people would have stayed until the whole campaign was ended instead.

- 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.

I think this is worth repeating as well, I agree with alot of this myself perhaps not in full but it should certainly be an area for discussion at Epic if there is a next UT game in the works.

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.

Now this might seem overly complex for something so simple since the current route is make a new map (even the necris versions are new maps and not simply a layer). I think what it adds to UT far outweighs the added complexity. 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. Having maps actually transform into their necris version was one thing that would have wow'd alot of people, having played starcraft and warcraft 3 where the zerg and the undead transform their environment around them to see that in a first person shooter... Especially on Unreal Engine 3, well...

Player classes, well I think theres room for them but I honestly dunno if I would agree on those being a default. Theres alot of things I really like about UT3 like the environment hazards and some of the added extras in maps but I certainly think theirs room to really push the arena style play a step further

 

[Sir_Brizz]

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.

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.

I would like to see more originality in Warfare maps, to be sure. However, Warfare is ONS + AS more on an individual basis than anything else. I play Special Ops, and doing things like Shaped Charge drops on nodes/core is VERY AS like in nature. It would be nice, though, to see maps with more objective based events (like the ability to take the orb to an outpost that closes off a path to a node). There are a few of those, but they are too simple.

 

[UnrealGrrl]

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.

Epic has always taeken feedback and usually acted upon it, even if its after the game is released... they are one of the best devs as far as supporting and patching games you will ever meet.

Recreating ut99 or even 2k4(no thanks) is not ever going to happen and shouldnt happen. it was a great game (UT99) i logged more late nights on it thatn i wanna admit. but everyone whining about wanting to play a "new" version of those games needs to move on, get over themselves or go back to playing those games. they are not getting rereleased with better gfx.

I'd like to never see anything from UT2004.

amen brotha! i really enjoyed playing ut2004 but i dont want a rehash of it and UT3 blows it away, no contest.

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 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.

agreed on all those points tho i wont really comment about Warfare/ONs since those are not my gametypes - though i do enjoy War sometimes...
if only the TL and the HB didnt share the same key!

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.

Amen and hallelujah!

UT3 simply rocks despite its problems... ALL UTs had flaws and needed patching and fixes. however UT3 suffered from an early release and bad demo that none of the others had to survive though...

and as for the Epic forums. i hope they keep locking closing and banning. some of you dont remember how bad the forums at gta/ina/IG/atari used to be... they are really well moderated now, and hey - its their house, they can do what they want to. i dont see you 'i got banned wah!' ppl giving tea n cookies to trolls talking about your mama in your house

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

no doubt theres a few ppl thats true for, im disappointed with some of the games missing/broken stuff, but overall it really rocks - best UT imnsho.

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... this is across the board from n00bs to 'pros' and Im not painting with a totally broad brush. there are some of the competitive players still out there on the servers playing UT3 and new players every time i jump online. the game does have PC fans. but most (like many here unfortunately and around the unreal universe) just like to jump on the 'I can whine louder than you' bandwagon and the 'look how cool my sarcastic witty nasty anti UT3 quip is' bus and are hanging around the forum cause they got nothing better to do... (ie no job or significant other). most UT3 fans are playing UT3, not posting about it. and sadly for us (PC players) most current UT3 fans are likely on PS3 and soon on xbox...

its been rehashed ad nauseam, everyone including Epic has said the game got released too soon for PC without the necessary polish and with too many missing/broken pieces. it still rocks. imagine what it could have been if it was released this month with the xbox version when it should have been. all the advertising could have been focused as ONE. Shame.

gotta play ut3 now... ciao!

 

[Bersy]

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.

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.

I know that my making a list of things to pay attention to via a forum probably isn't going to make a shred of difference. But it makes sense that community veterans should have the opportunity to weigh in on matters and be respectfully listened to. More ideally though it would be nice to have a two way dialogue with some of the developers and understand some of their motivations and be able to throw ideas around with them, because then some communication barriers are removed, and hopefully goes from trite to creating a better relationship between the devs and gamers & coming up with realistic solutions.

But I'm guessing I'm one of those people on Jeff's ignore list over on Epic for some reason or another in the past, so I don't hold very high hopes of that at all.

 

[TheIronKnuckle]

1. Focus on the Tournament, not a war.

that's all i need to see in order for your post to be made of win

 

[Bersy]

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 an intelligent idea.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

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.

That's all I was saying.

All I am saying is that there are people who have something Epic themselves sort of lack, being a well rounded fan perspective.

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.

 

[JaFO]

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....

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.

IMHO it is time for Epic to say goodbye to the series and start with a new property just like they did when they created GoW.

Any new version of UT will have to suffer through the same old sh*t again and it will have yet another fan-base to contend with (= those who like UT3 for the great game that it is).

...
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... ...

I couldn't have said it better myself.
It's as if everything has to be "Epic fix it or else ...".
There were complaints about the GUI in UT2kx as well, but people either just played the game regardless or they got off their lazy behinds fixed it instead of posting thousands of threads claiming that it had been 'consolized'(tm).

It's not just the UT-series that suffers from this though. The effect is also visible on forums for games like Diablo, Starcraft, Guitar Hero, Rockband and anything else out there that has attracted a large enough fan-base.

One would be tempted to think that the only difference between console-gamers and pc-gamers is that although the latter have the opportunity to modify the games they still want the proverbial moon on a stick delivered to them by the developers themselves.

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

- The UT2004 floaty player and hitscan should never come back.

I agree. I actually thought the UT3 movement was pretty good though I can't say I'm a fan of the double jump for anything other than activating the jump boots.

Ever wonder why UT 2004 CTF isn't very popular at all? My theory is that the floaty-dodgeyness turned it into a hitscan game. In contrast, although it's also part of Onslaught, it the floaty-dodgeyness plays far less of a role because of the prevalence of the vehicles.

- Game types like AS and BR should be gone, they are wasted time implementing them for the amount of actual players.

Was Assault really such a flop? It had lots of fans in UT99 and IMHO the UT 2004 Assault was better than the UT99 Assault because you couldn't rocket boost people and there wasn't an impact hammer for boost + hammer or piston boot jump. I think UT 2004 Assault Racing--with vehicles, is a fun game too.

As for Bombing Run, on paper it's a fun game. The problem with UT 2004 Bombing Run is that, like CTF, as one of the on-foot games it became a hit scan fest because of the floaty dodgeyness. If there had been a UT99 Bombing Run as a standard game mode I think it would have been pretty popular.

Perhaps Epic shouldn't spend a lot of time making maps for UT4 Assault and UT4 Bombing Run, but I'd like to see the game include those game types themselves. Perhaps they could include a small handful of Assault maps (say 4 of them) and convert standard CTF maps into Bombing Run maps.

As for Onslaught/Warfare, the game should be Onslaught with the option to add the Orb as a mutator.

- 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.

This isn't a bad idea at all. As a general rule, DM maps can often be converted into DOM maps and just about all CTF maps can be easily converted into Bombing Run maps.

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.

One way to possibly increase UT3's player base, assuming that it would make legal sense to do it, would be to add a "Tribes" type of game to it; a game mode with jet packs and some deployable items. It would probably bring in legions of Tribes fans but might also require obtaining a license from the owner of the Tribes intellectual property rights.

 

[WHIPperSNAPper]

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.

What exactly do you mean by "strengthen the community"? My guess is that a stronger community would have both a larger number of active players and a larger number of people and a larger percentage of those active players who would get involved with discussion forums, clans, IRC, and voice comm.

I do think there is something that can be done. First, release a game that gets people addicted like crackheads so that there are people who could potentially strengthen the community in the first place and who would want to get involved. Secondly, make it very easy for people to find the online community. Perhaps in some sort of a way the game itself could direct people to discussion forums, IRC servers, and voice comm servers. Perhaps they could be advertised in the "News" area and the game could come with an excellent built-in IRC program and also a voice comm program that would allow people to connect to Teamspeak and Ventrilo servers. How about built-in Teamspeak and Ventrilo (assuming that it's feasible from an intellectual property rights perspective)?

 

[Dark Pulse]

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.

A bit of elements of UT3 mixed with XMP would be a pretty big hit, I think. It's a shame such a wonderful game is virtually a bastard child, Unreal's pariah of game types.

 

[Leo(T.C.K.)]

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.

I agree with most of what is said, except the AS thingy, I think assault can be there but more in a form featured in original UT or the as bonuspack.
It was always blast to play AS online on original UT, which I cannot say of ut2004, but of course it had bugs (but fixed with certain gametypes). Many maps at AS even at ut2004 were good though, the worst was probably robotfactory at all. Bombing run is more fun in ut2003 imo(I think it would be even interesting if it was actual bomb like in deathtag gametype for daiaktana (although the map there was way too complicated and too objective based to get people proper idea what to do in there) and you would need to bring it to base in a time until it explodes, I think even ut2003 was supposed to be in hat way originally, I think at beta the ball had the tick sound of bomb and after scoring players were not reset) and even some simmilar gametype at ut99 was fun, but I prefer other modes.

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.

Conquest was supposed to bring that back I think.

 

[Entr0p1cLqd]

...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....

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.

...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....

+1 to that. I loved 4 team DOM and TDM in UT.

I've thought about building a DM map that opens up new areas (and closes them off again) depending on player count. At my current rate of progress (since I'm working on a WAR map at the moment) I'll get around to building it when the sun goes dark and we are all using flashlights and wearing sweaters. I don't see any reason why it couldn't be done.

 

[Bersy]

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.

You sure they had focus to begin with?