Unreal Tournament III Wishlist
- Thread starter Fuzz
- Start date
-
Two Factor Authentication is now available on BeyondUnreal Forums. To configure it, visit your Profile and look for the "Two Step Verification" option on the left side. We can send codes via email (may be slower) or you can set up any TOTP Authenticator app on your phone (Authy, Google Authenticator, etc) to deliver codes. It is highly recommended that you configure this to keep your account safe.
This is a fundamental requirement which precedes in importance every single other aspect of a FPS game.
It's called the shotgun. It just needs to carry more rounds. Although Flak is better at range.
For me the big things UT3 needs (some of which are already mentioned) are:
- The ability to turn of the bloody taunts.
- An improved interface into the community/friends list. Especially the fact that you can't view someones details when multiple people have the same score on the scoreboard (it highlights everyone with the same score). Heck, most people don't even seem to know how it works, which isn't surprising given how badly it fits together.
- The ability to turn off all of the depth of field and bloom crap without having to set world detail to 1 from the GUI options.
- Bot and team editing a-la UT.
- The ability to have a map rotation list that contains different game types.
- Custom content downloads that actually work.
The above are just the things that have been bugging me recently. Generally I really enjoy playing the game in whatever game type (when I get the opportunity - I'm time constrained at the moment).
Weirdly in UT3 I seem to play a bit of everything whereas in 2K4 I always played WAR, and in UT I always played Insta-CTF.
I've been quite dissatisfied with UT3's lame death animations/ragdoll/blood effects/gibbing. They need more flipping ragdolls slamming into walls, leaving blood smears as they go. 
Hey, BW2k4 did it!
Hey, BW2k4 did it!
Some other game that succeeded when released at the same time as UT3 also has this issue of maps that are too small for most PC server player counts because the maps were designed with consoles and the relevant player counts there in mind.
Just sayin'.
The smaller maps will also give better fps for people with lower end PCs.
The community will fill this area in for UT3, it did for UT2004. It just takes longer to create good UT3 maps as we've already discussed. I have a few large WAR maps under development, but it will be a while before they are ready due to other work and MSUC work.
The community will fill this area in for UT3, it did for UT2004. It just takes longer to create good UT3 maps as we've already discussed. I have a few large WAR maps under development, but it will be a while before they are ready due to other work and MSUC work.
Last edited:
I'm afraid that's 100% not what I meant.You mean map size probably isn't a determiner of a game's popularity? SAY IT AIN'T SO!
What I meant was more along the lines of what I've been saying all along. Sure, UT3 might not be a "console port," but it was most likely built with consoles in mind at each design decision. In the case of the maps, small maps are for small player loads. It is a common, but often unspoken, understanding that CoD4's maps were made with 12-16 players in mind because that's all the consoles can handle at once. UT3 is full of small maps, even in Warfare mode. Put two and two together and you get...?
SCHFIFTY-FIVE.
UT3's map design was affected console player loads. Probably.
Many options in the User Interface to create user-friendly mutator by modifying many Simple Gameplay Features and Weapon Stats.
Jump size, movement speed, number of jumps, weapon speed, etc.
& Set up your features and save it as a Simple & easy Mutator.
This = beating down Halo 3 easily
This would also be a huge plus for the community to make quick Prototypes for their mods.
My opinion
Jump size, movement speed, number of jumps, weapon speed, etc.
& Set up your features and save it as a Simple & easy Mutator.
This = beating down Halo 3 easily
This would also be a huge plus for the community to make quick Prototypes for their mods.
My opinion
Last edited:
Yeah i dont think any gamer could be botherd spending 20mins looking of someone to frag in a large DM map unless there were heaps of players
Most of the stock WAR maps are linear play as a combined Assault/Onslaught.
Good WAR/ONS maps that support more than six players should not be two Cores and one or two Nodes linked linearly, which is common with the stock WAR maps.
WAR maps designed for 8 to 16 players should be 5, 7, or 9 Nodes depending on design and whether spurs are implemented, etc.
The issue is Epic "supported" 64 players per server but did so with 16-player maps (built for Xbox Live). CoD4 is the same way. There's no reason or justification for it; every map will suck ass with that many players. Hell, most suck ass with 32. Why even bother to allow that many to connect when the experience will be terrible? It makes no sense.
Can you imagine how epic a UT3 or CoD4 map with true 64-player support would be? There'd be multiple and entirely separate fronts and whatnot. I never played BF2 in any capacity (only the demo about two times) but I get the feeling that's what it was like.
Can you imagine how epic a UT3 or CoD4 map with true 64-player support would be? There'd be multiple and entirely separate fronts and whatnot. I never played BF2 in any capacity (only the demo about two times) but I get the feeling that's what it was like.
