BU Podcast: Episode Four Now Available!

[Sir_Brizz]

Continuing on our great series of videos, here is episode four! This week we talk about item pickups, whether thigns should be mutators, and how XMP could help improve ONS. Give it a listen!

​

 

[DeathBooger]

Fragcast!

 

[DannyMeister]

Call it Fragcast, and tag it podcast.

 

[DannyMeister]

Jailbreak is the good version of Last Man Standing ;p

 

[Sir_Brizz]

Jailbreak is the good version of Last Man Standing ;p

Best version, you mean

 

[UTNemesis]

Mushy strafing? I don't like the way that sounds. The community needs to stamp that out if possible. I hadn't thought of the affect strafing has on the feel of a game, but it's another example of those subtle differences that add up.

Personally, I don't like vehicles in UT. It's maybe asking too much to wish they wouldn't be included in the new game since the introduction of onslaught/warfare. The problem for me (and you touched on this in the podcast) is that once vehicles are introduced, the mechanics for standard DM and CTF no longer work well. I'd rather Epic pick just one and do it justice, versus trying to shoehorn a mechanic into a game type that doesn't match.

Yeah, maybe the mod/mutators you mentioned help to alleviate the issue in past games, but to me it would seem out of place to ship the game with two very different movement/gameplay styles. The alternative is to keep everything the same, but we know that doesn't work the greatest either.

Or just don't include vehicles at all

 

[BoneofFear]

Can't believe I have to continue to say this but...UnrealCast,Fragcast sounds far too generic for something as big as Unreal Tournament.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Call it Fragcast, and tag it podcast.

This ^
But if you're really worried about search engine traffic, title it something like... 'Fragcast; The BeyondUnreal podcast.' Are search engines really driving much traffic your way though? I do conceed though, that as time goes on and knowledge of a new UT increases that could change. I personally don't know any people who use 'podcast' in their searches anymore... but anyway.

Using Druids RPG, the RPG-extras mut(the version that worked halfway), and the advanced sentinels mut made for a 3 class based system in ut2k4 that actually felt pretty solid. Enabling the 'reset levels after each map' option and increasing the points scale kept things balanced... though those muts are primarily used on INV servers, but I digress. I was the punching bag for GZU for a long time and I couldn't agree more with comment of charging up nodes in ONS being dreadfully boring. I always felt that that sort of technician/medic/grunt setup provided by the above muts coupled with a different approach to the nodes could entirely change the game type.

My point with the toppings analogy was that the core gameplay is what one would base the competitive gameplay around. That core gameplay needs to be a solid foundation. Forget what I find fun, what you find fun, what anybody finds fun. That isn't what it is about. That gameplay needs to be solid, and basic. Easy to get on, get into, and get going with. Epic needs to come back and then add the 'toppings' as options that allow customizing of the game. That is the singular reason UT2k4 was and is still the most popular UT ever. You could make it your own game. If you liked, could look past, or were oblivious too certain wonky elements of the game, those problems were superfluous to your enjoyment.
Epic clearly realizes that they need to make the fundamentals sound and beyond that they need to put the game in the hands of the people. Part A made UT99 great, part B is what made UT2k4 so damn popular. Polish the whole thing with cutting edge graphics and well holy crap.
The reason those 'toppings' are important is they encourage customization and what if thinking. They give you building blocks to make new experiences with without breaking out the editor, but ever so subtlety in that act, they are pushing you in that direction.

Clearly you can't please everyone all the time. Which is why some things should be options to disable or enable, Some things should be stock mutators, and some things should be delivered by the community. Me personally? I think the key in deciding what goes where is to ask a simple question: Is this an iconic UT staple? If it is then it should be developed by Epic at some point. If not tack it on a community wish list.

Personally Adrenaline is one of those things epic should do. But It sounds more like mutator territory to me. Right up there with vampire, big heads, and low grav.

 

[Crotale]

I like the idea of a dashboard for setting up server administration and competition rules. You should be able to set up, save and share profiles for the dashboard.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Can't believe I have to continue to say this but...UnrealCast,Fragcast sounds far too generic for something as big as Unreal Tournament.

I believe you are somewhat alone in this because Unreal has 2 syllables and both frag and pod have 1. Though unreal is perhaps technically more accurate I agree, it doesn't flow the same grammatically.

 

[ambershee]

Best version, you mean

No.

 

[Sir_Brizz]

The reason those 'toppings' are important is they encourage customization and what if thinking. They give you building blocks to make new experiences with without breaking out the editor, but ever so subtlety in that act, they are pushing you in that direction.

I think the question is how these "toppings" are applied. If they are just options you can tick/untick in the game, then it becomes confusing what the "base game" is. That's why both UT and UT2004 had so many default mutators, and I still think that is the right direction to go. I do agree that there are some tick boxable things, but stuff like movement mechanics and other things can't just be a checkbox on the server. If it's outside of the base mechanics, it should be clearly outside the base mechanics.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

I think the question is how these "toppings" are applied. If they are just options you can tick/untick in the game, then it becomes confusing what the "base game" is. That's why both UT and UT2004 had so many default mutators, and I still think that is the right direction to go. I do agree that there are some tick boxable things, but stuff like movement mechanics and other things can't just be a checkbox on the server. If it's outside of the base mechanics, it should be clearly outside the base mechanics.

I agree except that mutators tend to have some configuration abilities beyond a simple on/off system. Though most people probably leave them on the defaults admittedly...

 

[Birelli]

OK, I have to emerge from years of hiding to comment on some of this stuff.

First off, many thanks for making the podcast. I was originally trying to follow developments on the official forums, and I frankly don't have the hours a day that would require to make any sense of it. A nice synopsis of the high points is great.

I think the question is how these "toppings" are applied. If they are just options you can tick/untick in the game, then it becomes confusing what the "base game" is. That's why both UT and UT2004 had so many default mutators, and I still think that is the right direction to go. I do agree that there are some tick boxable things, but stuff like movement mechanics and other things can't just be a checkbox on the server. If it's outside of the base mechanics, it should be clearly outside the base mechanics.

I completely agree. Also, Basic/Hardcore/Turbo game speeds was confusing enough for new players in UT. Having multi-jump, dodge-jump, and other massively game-altering options "randomly" flipping on and off as they move between servers would be a learning cliff.

Personally, I don't like vehicles in UT. It's maybe asking too much to wish they wouldn't be included in the new game since the introduction of onslaught/warfare. The problem for me (and you touched on this in the podcast) is that once vehicles are introduced, the mechanics for standard DM and CTF no longer work well. I'd rather Epic pick just one and do it justice, versus trying to shoehorn a mechanic into a game type that doesn't match.

I had this thought as well as I was listening to the discussion of ONS and XMP. Personally, I loved XMP. I loved that you could run around getting generators and spawning turrets and such and make a real contribution (but, appropriately, not as much as getting out there and actually fragging opponents). However, I just don't see how to reconcile these things with the core UT gameplay. I remember distinctly I and several others pushed over and over to implement vehicle support in Jailbreak 2k4, and it finally did make it in. When we finally got it, I had loads of fun making JB vehicle maps...and then after playing with it for a while, came to the realization that it just sucked. Vehicles were terrible in JB - they cheapen life. They ask you to spawn over and over and hammer yourself against the enemy and it's just drudgery. Pancaking someone is a slightly challenging skill to learn, but once you do, it's way too easy.

Leave the vehicles to Defense Alliance and similar mods. If the community gets in gear and makes such a mod early, it can even be in the core game as an alternate gameplay mode. Just leave the vehicles, classes, dodge-jumps, and other gimmicks out of the core gameplay.

/rant

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

I completely agree. Also, Basic/Hardcore/Turbo game speeds was confusing enough for new players in UT. Having multi-jump, dodge-jump, and other massively game-altering options "randomly" flipping on and off as they move between servers would be a learning cliff.

The easy and obvious answer to this problem is that the server browser filter is set to pure by default. With a loading screen menu message telling people that the can change it. They should probably do that no matter how they approach the extra movement mechanic issue just noobs the chance to learn the basics.

I had this thought as well as I was listening to the discussion of ONS and XMP. Personally, I loved XMP. I loved that you could run around getting generators and spawning turrets and such and make a real contribution (but, appropriately, not as much as getting out there and actually fragging opponents). However, I just don't see how to reconcile these things with the core UT gameplay. I remember distinctly I and several others pushed over and over to implement vehicle support in Jailbreak 2k4, and it finally did make it in. When we finally got it, I had loads of fun making JB vehicle maps...and then after playing with it for a while, came to the realization that it just sucked. Vehicles were terrible in JB - they cheapen life. They ask you to spawn over and over and hammer yourself against the enemy and it's just drudgery. Pancaking someone is a slightly challenging skill to learn, but once you do, it's way too easy.

Leave the vehicles to Defense Alliance and similar mods. If the community gets in gear and makes such a mod early, it can even be in the core game as an alternate gameplay mode. Just leave the vehicles, classes, dodge-jumps, and other gimmicks out of the core gameplay.

/rant

Simple. The gameplay mechanics need tweaked on a per gametype basis or perhaps a per map basis. What works on mostly indoor maps with winding corridors branching paths and tight corners, as is typical of DM, TDM, CTF, BR, and DDOM maps, wont work on large openworld maps like those for VCTF, ONS, WAR, INV...

Additionally I personally don't think it likely that any sort of quality implementation of vehicles could come from the mod community without native Epic support. Even with vehicles already present in previous iterations most of the custom vehicles for those are mediocre at best.

 

[TheSpoonDog]

I'm not against vehicle gametypes, I thought UT3 incorporated them into a more grounded general movement ok.

Simple. The gameplay mechanics need tweaked on a per gametype basis or perhaps a per map basis.

You mean between gametypes (or maps) your jump heights and speed and stuff is different? Can't see that ever working, pros would moan about it, noobs would get confused & frustrated?

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

I'm not against vehicle gametypes, I thought UT3 incorporated them into a more grounded general movement ok.

You mean between gametypes (or maps) your jump heights and speed and stuff is different? Can't see that ever working, pros would moan about it, noobs would get confused & frustrated?

To be frank I would think you of all people would know you can already do that. I.E. If you want to be able to jump higher in a map decrease the gravity. Or for more movement speed, edit your server ini's. I don't recall the setting but I know you can do this. On SP you can simply type a console command, something like "setspeed *number*". The default is 2048 if I recall.

The hoverboard did even the playing field a tad in UT3, though it was really too easy to get knocked off it IMO. I was merely suggesting that in vehicle maps/game modes other then firepower and rate of movement the advantage should go to the player. They are after all more agile. Maybe every-one in vehicle maps should load out with an avril instead of a shield gun/impact hammer?

I personally always wished you could get head shots with the 360 jump spin on the hoverboard. Or at least knock other players over. And while we are wishing. If they are going to give you a persistent summon-able vehicle, why not let it do some damage? It only makes sense that those flame jets do something. If you grind your board on a vehicle it should cause burn damage. Knock someone over and then run them over and light them up.

 

[DannyMeister]

Changing gravity or speed was possible, but they were there as outliers, not the norm.

One of the core principles of design (whether UI, application behavior, documentation, or any one of many different specific domains) is consistency. Most lists include that as the #1 item. It has been proved to me personally over and over so far in my career in software development. An experience needs to be consistent, repeatable, and intuitive in order for players to learn. Otherwise it's just frustrating! Can you imagine playing the game for the first time, figuring out what type of jumps you can successfully land, then on map switch it's all different?

When you run into design issues where the core movement doesn't work for a particular map or game mode, then either that map or game mode doesn't belong in your game, or you need to design in something to compensate. You don't magically run faster in a map that has longer hallways! Instead you can add some teleporters, moving walkways, or conveyor belts to give an intuitive speed boost that doesn't ruin the players perception of how the game works. People's bodies don't suddenly magically become able to jump further/higher just because they are in an outdoor arena with vehicles. Instead, give them some extra equipment so that their running and jumping feels exactly the same, but they can activate a jet pack or a hoverboard, etc.

 

[TheSpoonDog]

To be frank I would think you of all people would know you can already do that

Hehe, with all the lessons I've learned over the past 14 years, I probably wouldn't screw with movement any more Low-grav is ok, but its best if all low-grav has a standard/consistent value and is clearly different from normal grav.

Not to say it shouldn't be possible to screw with them, if a mapper wants (that kind of crazy shit is what made the UT community really), just personally I would not do it any more.

Maybe every-one in vehicle maps should load out with an avril instead of a shield gun/impact hammer?

Not a bad idea - I think most people ended up sticking one in the spawn weapon lockers to kind of simulate that.

 

[[GU]elmur_fud]

Changing gravity or speed was possible, but they were there as outliers, not the norm.

One of the core principles of design (whether UI, application behavior, documentation, or any one of many different specific domains) is consistency. Most lists include that as the #1 item. It has been proved to me personally over and over so far in my career in software development. An experience needs to be consistent, repeatable, and intuitive in order for players to learn. Otherwise it's just frustrating! Can you imagine playing the game for the first time, figuring out what type of jumps you can successfully land, then on map switch it's all different?

When you run into design issues where the core movement doesn't work for a particular map or game mode, then either that map or game mode doesn't belong in your game, or you need to design in something to compensate. You don't magically run faster in a map that has longer hallways! Instead you can add some teleporters, moving walkways, or conveyor belts to give an intuitive speed boost that doesn't ruin the players perception of how the game works. People's bodies don't suddenly magically become able to jump further/higher just because they are in an outdoor arena with vehicles. Instead, give them some extra equipment so that their running and jumping feels exactly the same, but they can activate a jet pack or a hoverboard, etc.

I am not sure how to address this, you seem to be assuming a lot...
But here goes...
1. If you had read my previous post you might realize you are arguing with nobody.

2. As a parent of a child with ADHD that has an IQ of 123 at age 11, and as a level designer(amateur yes, but a popular 1 in the areas I map for) and a graphics designer I well understand consistency.

3. Consistency doesn't imply rigidity or a lack of creativity or even doing the same thing the same way every time. A relative example to the topic at hand is that you press 'w' (or the up arrow) to move forward when running, you press the same key to move forward once you climb in a vehicle.... Not every vehicle moves at the same pace and none of them move at the exact speed your run. Consistency is about things making sense and being intuitive. One way to do that is to just do what was done before, but that is a cop out. Do movement rates change from map to map? Yes. Do people notice? I have, but maybe I am alone in this. The differences were after-all generally subtle.

4. I will try and state what I was saying as clearly as I can. I don't believe vehicles are inconsistent to UT. I think they are inherent to both what UT and the modern FPS has evolved into. Removing vehicles could potentially turn off a lot of people to the game. I do agree with the sentiments of this installment that the gameplay in vehicle gametypes was unbalanced in previous UT's but that there are multiple ways to approach fixing that outside of stripping vehicles from this installment of UT.

5.If this was a troll... You want to talk problems with consistency? What is with your sig?

Hehe, with all the lessons I've learned over the past 14 years, I probably wouldn't screw with movement any more Low-grav is ok, but its best if all low-grav has a standard/consistent value and is clearly different from normal grav.

Not to say it shouldn't be possible to screw with them, if a mapper wants (that kind of crazy shit is what made the UT community really), just personally I would not do it any more.


Not a bad idea - I think most people ended up sticking one in the spawn weapon lockers to kind of simulate that.

I, as did many people, only messed with the gravity scale in space maps. Never made one in UT3 but it occurs to me that there you could probably control it with volumes, meaning that you should be able to move from a low gravity volume to a full or even a high gravity volume and have your rate of descent subsequently affected. The latter would be useful if making an area of intense downward energy that would suck anything to terminal velocity very quickly... ... knowing the way I play I would semi camp near it just to shieldgun/impact hammer people into it. pardon the tangent.