PC Gamers February issue

[T2A`]

And given that single player was UT2004's main weakness...

UT2004's main weakness is its weak excuse for multiplayer gameplay. No one really wants to shoot tiny targets from a hundred feet away. Rockets and flak are not only not as useful and fun as they should be, but they're nerfed and underpowered. I guarantee pretty much the only reason ONS was even remotely successful, even though it's bad and unbalanced, is because it's not the poor UT2004 core gameplay, but something that anyone can pick up and start blowing people up in.

That pretty much nails it. I was keen on seeing CON/UW because I didn't like ONS and wanted to try something a little different. But if it's just ONS+ then I'll skip it and stick with DM/CTF.

If they get ONS right I will have no problems playing it. I don't like UT2004 ONS at all because a) the vehakals are boring and unbalanced and b) the gametype itself is extremely unbalanced with only one retail map fit for competitive play. I am disappointed that CON won't be around, but if they make a good version of ONS I won't mind too much. Without CON, however, the game shouldn't be more than $30 when it comes out.

 

[rhirud]

Well ONS has moved forward. None of the retail maps are really fit for play. Every map has choke points and imbalances; where the whole game is a rush to take a single node; and then a pitched battle over that node.

The only exception was Yawn; but that had it's own problems of having insufficient beef in the middle nodes to hold them for any length of time.

So I'd sumarise that all retail maps were poor. The quality of the maps now being released by the community is in a different league.

But i'd agree that ONS is mainly sucessful because it's pick up and play.
In DM, novice players get hammered, and in team DM, poor players feel guilty because they loose the game for their team.

DM is terrific to play againt opponents of your own standard, and if they find a way of getting balanced matched, I can see DM getting a revival.

I'd doubt that UT's multiplayer was a failure though. I'd imangine hardly anybody plays single player now; whilst UT2004 has outlived all other multiplayer games that were released the same time; and many games that were released afterwards.

 

[LooseCannon]

I wonder if we'd go through SafeGame checks between maps. Two hours wouldn't be long enough. Oh eck!

Maybe a series of small ONS'ish maps could work. However, the timescales and team-solidarity have always concerned me as many others it seems from the above posts.

I'm looking forward to the conjecture ending and the demo starting.

 

[LooseCannon]

.... I guarantee pretty much the only reason ONS was even remotely successful, even though it's bad and unbalanced, is because it's not the poor UT2004 core gameplay, but something that anyone can pick up and start blowing people up in. ....

"Successful" and "pick up and play" are the reasons for keeping, plus building on the ONS genre. It's got to be a commercial.

Let noobs, like all new players, get started and put a smile on their faces. They don't even have to know what's going on in the match to have a laugh and enjoy themselves to start with. Then they might get the friends playing.

What I love about UT is the added depths and variations of game play. There are more than I have time to know about, let alone actually learn to do well.

None of the above addresses the potential loooooooooooong game issues of UW. Thankfully, I've managed to keep a like outside UT. So far...

 

[BulletProof]

"Successful" and "pick up and play" are the reasons for keeping, plus building on the ONS genre. It's got to be a commercial.

Let noobs, like all new players, get started and put a smile on their faces. They don't even have to know what's going on in the match to have a laugh and enjoy themselves to start with. Then they might get the friends playing.

What I love about UT is the added depths and variations of game play. There are more than I have time to know about, let alone actually learn to do well.

Thats a very good point and that is were ONS truly shines. Unfortunately, because of all the things that add depth and cater to veteran/competitive players it's not just a matter of introducing new players into the game. The way the "core" gametypes are now they require continual "practice" to be able to compete and really enjoy, meaning that UT alienates people who don't want to dedicate their gaming lives to UT.

Most cannot just pick up UT out of the blue and have a good time online. This unfortunately is true for most games, but for UT especially. It's like unless you're continually moving up the learning curve your weight will pull you down to the bottom.

 

[rhirud]

The problem is that if they nerf movement as was originally proposed, to make people easier to hit; newbies will be splatted by mantas, and mantas will become overpowered.

So if Epic nerf movements, new players can enjoy DM more, but will enjoy Onslaught less.

Surely the correct answer to the vetran vs novice dilema is to give each servers of their own. I know ELO and rank isn't perfect; but whenever I review a the stat of a game; I'd say the rough categories do summarise a player's skill. The ELO 0 category, ELO 0-40 category, 30-80 categories, 70-130 categories and 80+ would make sense.

But personally I'd prefer an actively adminned server that caters for everybody.

 

[BulletProof]

rhirud, that's a good point, but hopefully that is something that can be tweaked to avoid.

And am I correct in remembering someone from Epic talking about and Optimatch type system, which implies a ranking system to match it. Rankings/Optimatch in Halo 2 worked great.

 

[Selerox]

Faster run speed alone is a good balance

The problem is that if they nerf movement as was originally proposed, to make people easier to hit; newbies will be splatted by mantas, and mantas will become overpowered.

So if Epic nerf movements, new players can enjoy DM more, but will enjoy Onslaught less.

The idea isn't to nerf movement per se, but simply to tone down the jumps and bring it closer to the style of UT99. UT99 had a considerably faster run speed than UT200x, so it's not like players will be sitting targets. The use of dodge-jumping as a movement tool started because of the slow run speed in UT200x. In UT99, running was the fastest way to get around the map, and that just isn't the case in UT200x.

I'd expect UT2007 to be as fast, if not faster than UT200x when it comes to overall movement.

 

[XøL]

The problem is that if they nerf movement as was originally proposed, to make people easier to hit; newbies will be splatted by mantas, and mantas will become overpowered.

So if Epic nerf movements, new players can enjoy DM more, but will enjoy Onslaught less.

Weren't they going to introduce hoverboards or something in ons & uw? Didn't think about it that much because I just stick to getting flags, but seems to me that it's basically invented to solve the problem you mention.

 

[Draco73]

Weren't they going to introduce hoverboards or something in ons & uw? Didn't think about it that much because I just stick to getting flags, but seems to me that it's basically invented to solve the problem you mention.

lol no the hover boards where made to get around the map quickly by means of pulling, for example u would attach ur self to a hell bender and be pulled behind it. you can not "skate" with it...or atleast they havent told us u can. as of right now u still need to walk/run. its only purpose is to get u from node to node more quckly

 

[XøL]

lol no the hover boards where made to get around the map quickly by means of pulling, for example u would attach ur self to a hell bender and be pulled behind it. you can not "skate" with it...or atleast they havent told us u can. as of right now u still need to walk/run. its only purpose is to get u from node to node more quckly

You say "no", but explain "yes".

Even if it's only for hitching rides, I would assume you'd be less of a sitting duck, or at the very least the shorter travelling time will leave less of an opportunity for you to be "splatted" while you're on your way somewhere. ^^

Eh, but either way it's just speculation anyway, they'll probably get it right on some level at least

 

[Draco73]

You say "no", but explain "yes".

Even if it's only for hitching rides, I would assume you'd be less of a sitting duck, or at the very least the shorter travelling time will leave less of an opportunity for you to be "splatted" while you're on your way somewhere. ^^

Eh, but either way it's just speculation anyway, they'll probably get it right on some level at least

no i would see it as more of an opportunity to get killed, since as of right now 90% of people get in vehicles or ride vehicles from node to node...and obviously when in a vehicle u cant get run over. but now if all the extra people will be riding behind a vehicle think about how easy it would be for a manta to just come along and side swipe who ever is riding behind say the hellbender? u have no protection, ur out in the open. and its not like u can even use wepons cause ur "wepon" will be the hoverboard. so u cant even shoot at who ever it is. so basicly u will be out in the open, volnerable too all air/ground, attacks...and have absolutly no control over where u are being pulled since u are not the driver.

so when u start thinking of everything and adding it together, yes u might get from node to node faster...but in doing so u will be an easier target.

 

[Neophoenix]

Actually if you have a fully manned vehicle it would be harder to kill the H.B. players I would think. Hopefully, the tether will both be quick enough to attach to passing vehicles and have the ability to retract, so a player can get into a partially manned vehicle and provide cover for TMs. If it can't do those two things it will be pointless to even have the H.B. in the game.

 

[EggBoy]

I wonder which things the hoverboard tether will be able to attach to... like air vehicles, enemy vehicles, spider mines, rockets, other players, redeemers

 

[Scuzzbuster]

There's nothing to feel disappointed about because we really don't have any f**king clue what we're talking about (although I appreciate lots of people around here love to pretend they do).

I second this. Nobody has the first clue what true course of this game was going to be from the beginning...just a bunch of hope mixed with speculation based on crumbs of information from various interviews which not only are vague but seemingly convey conflicting messages. I don't think Epic has the full picture on how this game/these mods will play out yet...

I'll give it it every chance because I remain loyal to the Unreal Series and no matter what other games I pick up and play...even enjoy...I always find myself back at UT

 

[rhirud]

Now that's an idea I like. Fire a redeemer; latch on to it with a line; and give the redeemer some covering fire. Ideal; especially if they give a redeemer a well needed minimal arming distace so it can't be used at close range.