Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

UT99 Translocator - Please

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Hey guys, please refrain from the insults. Continue to give us your opinion but please don't attack each other.

    Thank you
    Stacey Conley
    -----------------------------
    Unreal Tournament Community Manager
    Epic Games, Inc.
    Twitter | Twitch | Facebook | Instagram | YouTube | Pinterest

    Comment


      Originally posted by cafe View Post
      LOL, removing the limit DISPLAY is not the same thing as removing the limit. We aren't that stupid.
      Well, that was one of the changes, but it's not the only one.
      BeyondUnreal Podcast
      r/UnrealTournament Moderator

      Comment


        Originally posted by Bubbaxm2 View Post
        The TL discussions have quieted down considerably recently, why? because it's current implementation is working pretty good. Perfect? No, but not bad at all.
        I haven't commented recently because there are several things I dislike about the current implementation, and I was waiting to see if it might improve as it gradually converges from "place holder" to final implementation. Unfortunately, it seems to be moving in the wrong direction.
        • I was in favour of testing the throw-to-teleport time delay, which has the advantage of making telefragging less easy. Unfortunately, it has the side effect of completely nullifying the translocator as an instrument of fine positional control, and I think it needs to be removed (this problem is compounded by the lack of double-jump, which significantly reduces z-axis control: link).
        • The disk is far too easy to kill, and is regularly destroyed by accident by random splash damage or a single link or stinger charge. It should be made such that killing the disk is a result of an intentionally aimed shot, i.e. requiring a direct shock or sniper hit or a very close rocket/flak ball.
        • The limit in its current form is frustrating, partly because the limited HUD information makes it difficult to know when you're about to run out.
        • The disk moves too slowly, particularly with the above limitations in mind. It shouldn't feel like a long slog to translocate from base to base in Dam or FaceTest.

        Comment


          Originally posted by j View Post
          I haven't commented recently because there are several things I dislike about the current implementation, and I was waiting to see if it might improve as it gradually converges from "place holder" to final implementation. Unfortunately, it seems to be moving in the wrong direction.
          • I was in favour of testing the throw-to-teleport time delay, which has the advantage of making telefragging less easy. Unfortunately, it has the side effect of completely nullifying the translocator as an instrument of fine positional control, and I think it needs to be removed (this problem is compounded by the lack of double-jump, which significantly reduces z-axis control: link).
          • The disk is far too easy to kill, and is regularly destroyed by accident by random splash damage or a single link or stinger charge. It should be made such that killing the disk is a result of an intentionally aimed shot, i.e. requiring a direct shock or sniper hit or a very close rocket/flak ball.
          • The limit in its current form is frustrating, partly because the limited HUD information makes it difficult to know when you're about to run out.
          • The disk moves too slowly, particularly with the above limitations in mind. It shouldn't feel like a long slog to translocate from base to base in Dam or FaceTest.
          Now we are talking, much nicer when people stop complaining and start explaining. I am just not a big fan of "give me what I want or I will call it garbage" mentality that some people like to think is going to get them what they want. Epic has stated numerous times, "show us" what you want and "show us" why or why not something will or will not work. Pretty simple really.

          I can say that if there is going to be a recharge or limit that I prefer to know haw close I am as well. In it's current implementation I find it hard to hit the limit, but it would still be nice to know. In all honesty, looking at the game as a whole and all of the things that have been mentioned about lobby's and such, I would love to see something implemented through that system that allows people to play certain ways. Not to steer the topic away to much but it could be as simple as selecting something like "oldschool ctf" when setting up the lobby. This would allow the lobby to load to a server that has the trans and other gametype features in alignment with 99 ctf. Would it allow the community to be more segregated? Possibly. Would it make setting up rule sets for tourneys harder? Probably. It's likely that if it comes out not like the 99 one, someone will make a mutator for it anyway. I would like to just see the possibility of having everyone under one roof for once, rather than spread over four different games.

          Comment


            Originally posted by Bubbaxm2 View Post
            Now we are talking, much nicer when people stop complaining and start explaining. I am just not a big fan of "give me what I want or I will call it garbage" mentality that some people like to think is going to get them what they want. Epic has stated numerous times, "show us" what you want and "show us" why or why not something will or will not work. Pretty simple really.

            I can say that if there is going to be a recharge or limit that I prefer to know haw close I am as well. In it's current implementation I find it hard to hit the limit, but it would still be nice to know. In all honesty, looking at the game as a whole and all of the things that have been mentioned about lobby's and such, I would love to see something implemented through that system that allows people to play certain ways. Not to steer the topic away to much but it could be as simple as selecting something like "oldschool ctf" when setting up the lobby. This would allow the lobby to load to a server that has the trans and other gametype features in alignment with 99 ctf. Would it allow the community to be more segregated? Possibly. Would it make setting up rule sets for tourneys harder? Probably. It's likely that if it comes out not like the 99 one, someone will make a mutator for it anyway. I would like to just see the possibility of having everyone under one roof for once, rather than spread over four different games.
            It's like trying to convince people that coke is better than pepsi. It boils down to personal preference and I think most people have just given up.

            Comment


              Yes, some may have given up but when people constantly point out that they will not accept anything but what they want or they will not move on from 99 doesn't solve anything. I would prefer to look at all options or ways to make the game enjoyable for all without the hostility or attempts to hold Epic hostage to get what they want.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Bubbaxm2 View Post
                Yes, some may have given up but when people constantly point out that they will not accept anything but what they want or they will not move on from 99 doesn't solve anything. I would prefer to look at all options or ways to make the game enjoyable for all without the hostility or attempts to hold Epic hostage to get what they want.
                Dude listen. In all seriousness, here's the most rational explanation I can give you. UT99 was arguably, the high point in the franchises life. You can make an argument that there weren't many games to choose from at the time, and that might be true, but correlation does not equal causation. It continued to be the, or one of the front runners long after newer games came out. It had a HUGE clan scene, tons of competition and there are reasons for that.

                These guys here, from the UT99 community have a good idea, many of them having played all of the games in the series, what works and what does not. It's not about being hostile, holding anyone hostage or not wanting to move on. It's more about knowing, for a fact, what worked, what was fun and what would be best for the community at large (something quite a few of these old timers care a lot about -- we had a really cool community back in the day -- something I haven't seen in years). The old TL was perfect. OK, maybe nothing's perfect, but it was good enough, that really, no changes are neccessary. Ditto with the sniper rifle, the flak cannon, the rocket launcher, the shock rifle and the movement mechanics. Want to add a tweak here or an additional movement type? Go ahead... We'll see how it pans out. But after a decade of dealing with a gimped version of something that was already a masterpiece is foolish, and gets a lot of people riled up. Change for the sake of change rarely brings good results.

                I'm an engineer in real life, and if every new product cycle we decided to change everything about the previous iteration of our product, just because, we'd lose all of our return customers and end up giving our new customers some bastardized version of the thing that gave us our name in the first place. You only change what is broken, what is not working as intended (goo gun for example) and you add features judiciously. A few upgrades at a time. That kind of work ethic is what will make a game that has the longevity of UT99, satisfy people who want something NEW and shiny while avoiding the problem of losing long time consumers of the brand due to 47 new features.

                Sometimes less is more. Keep it simple stupid. Don't fix what ain't broke. All of these statements work in this scenario.

                I mean no offense to anyone... but the old TL was better than any iteration that followed. And furthermore, there was nothing about it to begin with that indicated that a change was needed.

                I suggest we start with a baseline... And I think that baseline should be as close to the smash hit that UT99 was as is possible. From there, we can tweak, add and remove what is necessarily tweakable, missing and broke. Beyond that, the NEW and shiny stuff should be maps, music, weapon skins, effects, graphics, sounds, mutators, etc... but NOT the core gameplay for the love of cheebus.

                Thanks for listening to my rant.

                I'm not a vegetarian because I dislike meat... I'm a vegetarian because I HATE plants!!

                "Brightskins are a sanctioned form of cheating..." -- Mahatma Ghandi

                Comment


                  Originally posted by Modulus View Post
                  Dude listen. In all seriousness, here's the most rational explanation I can give you. UT99 was arguably, the high point in the franchises life. You can make an argument that there weren't many games to choose from at the time, and that might be true, but correlation does not equal causation. It continued to be the, or one of the front runners long after newer games came out. It had a HUGE clan scene, tons of competition and there are reasons for that.

                  These guys here, from the UT99 community have a good idea, many of them having played all of the games in the series, what works and what does not. It's not about being hostile, holding anyone hostage or not wanting to move on. It's more about knowing, for a fact, what worked, what was fun and what would be best for the community at large (something quite a few of these old timers care a lot about -- we had a really cool community back in the day -- something I haven't seen in years). The old TL was perfect. OK, maybe nothing's perfect, but it was good enough, that really, no changes are neccessary. Ditto with the sniper rifle, the flak cannon, the rocket launcher, the shock rifle and the movement mechanics. Want to add a tweak here or an additional movement type? Go ahead... We'll see how it pans out. But after a decade of dealing with a gimped version of something that was already a masterpiece is foolish, and gets a lot of people riled up. Change for the sake of change rarely brings good results.

                  I'm an engineer in real life, and if every new product cycle we decided to change everything about the previous iteration of our product, just because, we'd lose all of our return customers and end up giving our new customers some bastardized version of the thing that gave us our name in the first place. You only change what is broken, what is not working as intended (goo gun for example) and you add features judiciously. A few upgrades at a time. That kind of work ethic is what will make a game that has the longevity of UT99, satisfy people who want something NEW and shiny while avoiding the problem of losing long time consumers of the brand due to 47 new features.

                  Sometimes less is more. Keep it simple stupid. Don't fix what ain't broke. All of these statements work in this scenario.

                  I mean no offense to anyone... but the old TL was better than any iteration that followed. And furthermore, there was nothing about it to begin with that indicated that a change was needed.

                  I suggest we start with a baseline... And I think that baseline should be as close to the smash hit that UT99 was as is possible. From there, we can tweak, add and remove what is necessarily tweakable, missing and broke. Beyond that, the NEW and shiny stuff should be maps, music, weapon skins, effects, graphics, sounds, mutators, etc... but NOT the core gameplay for the love of cheebus.

                  Thanks for listening to my rant.
                  Game development in general isn't also about repeating the same stuff time and time again. That's not even smart, that's pure laziness.
                  UT99 wouldn't have been the success it was if it was just the multiplayer component of Unreal. Likewise with UT2004, it didn't got it's success by just being UT99 with better graphics. What I keep reading in this thread and a lot of other threads in this forum can be reduced to "make the ut I like with better graphics and nothing else". And generally speaking, if videogame development history has shown something, is that game remakes in general, as perfect as they may be, have never surpassed or reached the success of the game those remakes were based upon from.
                  UT4 should be it's own game, not a rehash of a previous iteration.
                  Last edited by Neon_Knight; 10-09-2014, 12:02 AM.
                  Unreal Wiki - Collecting Unreal lore, one article at a time.
                  "The ratio of critics to creators is something like 10,000:1. The ratio of good critics to bad: 1:10,000. (Where good means 'helps advancing the art')" - Fast Eddie, TVTropes

                  Comment


                    Originally posted by Neon_Knight View Post
                    UT99 wouldn't have been the success it was if it was just the multiplayer component of Unreal.
                    But it was that, essentially. New skins, slightly more forgiving movement physics, new maps, but otherwise. I mean, did you play Unreal much? It only took me about 4 seconds playing the UT99 demo on my schools LAN to feel all the similarities between unreal and UT. UT was an extension of unreal. 2k4 was an extension of UT99 in a very very weak sense. It was from an entirely different dimension than Unreal and UT99.

                    I'm not a vegetarian because I dislike meat... I'm a vegetarian because I HATE plants!!

                    "Brightskins are a sanctioned form of cheating..." -- Mahatma Ghandi

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Bubbaxm2 View Post
                      I can say that if there is going to be a recharge or limit that I prefer to know haw close I am as well. In it's current implementation I find it hard to hit the limit, but it would still be nice to know.
                      The other change that was made to the tl was increasing the charges from 5 to 8. Remember that the recharge time is 1, and that gives you another 4 charges while you expend the 8. The end result is that you can translocate 12 times continuously before you run out.

                      The two commit messages related to this from Steve say:

                      Increased translocator charges so they no longer limit translocator use
                      Don't show ammo for Impact Hammer and Translocator, since they don't use ammo.

                      In other words, there is no limit. It's practically impossible to reach the limit. It's easy to demonstrate this yourself by going to the race map and trying to reach the limit. It is difficult even if you are trying to reach it. If you reach the limit in a regular match, you're probably doing something wrong.

                      As for "fine positional control" this is really the crux of the issue. At the Epic playtest event I asked "why is it ok that I can run away into a separate room, but warping around in someone's face is bad?" Epic responded that this was exactly what they are trying to prevent. They like that the translocator will get you where you want to be as fast as possible. In fact, they said the primary balancing factor for the disk is where you can reach and not how fast it lets you travel. But they said warping around in your face is exactly what they want to prevent. That it is frustrating when the person is right in front of you, but you can't hit them.

                      They have basically made the tl unlimited because the refire rate is what's stopping the exploit they dislike. At least that was my take away from what I've seen.
                      BeyondUnreal Podcast
                      r/UnrealTournament Moderator

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by TheWhiteDragon View Post
                        It's practically impossible to reach the limit. It's easy to demonstrate this yourself by going to the race map and trying to reach the limit. It is difficult even if you are trying to reach it. If you reach the limit in a regular match, you're probably doing something wrong.
                        It's almost impossible to reach that limit but people can still reach it and when they do so they are doing something wrong?
                        Signature removed, over allowed size

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by DonkeyKong View Post
                          It's almost impossible to reach that limit but people can still reach it and when they do so they are doing something wrong?
                          I'd just like to see what people are doing to hit the limit, personally. Whatever way that is different from how I use it is an important distinction since I have never run out of TL in UT4.
                          HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                          BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                          Comment


                            Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                            I'd just like to see what people are doing to hit the limit, personally. Whatever way that is different from how I use it is an important distinction since I have never run out of TL in UT4.
                            There is a lot wrong with the current translocator other than the limit. Which is why most people would prefer to start at something similar to the ut99 style and work from there. It's way too exhausting to argue every single point regarding this thing. I suggest we at least try UT99 style balancing.

                            Comment


                              Originally posted by cafe View Post
                              There is a lot wrong with the current translocator other than the limit. Which is why most people would prefer to start at something similar to the ut99 style and work from there. It's way too exhausting to argue every single point regarding this thing. I suggest we at least try UT99 style balancing.
                              Considering how much fuss was made over the non limiting limit, I find it hard to believe that the other properties are too hard to discuss. If we expect the developers to change a gameplay mechanic, we should be able to explain why.

                              So I guess I'll start by listing why I like the current translocator.

                              The travel distance works really well in the map. There's plenty of room to fight without making the map feel gigantic. You can get to where you need to be quickly, and this keeps matches fast and engaging.

                              There aren't any serious map exploits. It's powerful at reaching places, but it's not broken. At least not in the current map. It corresponds well to the fall distance just outside the top exit in dam by the jump pad. Or another example is finding the right angle to get through the window from certain angles.

                              The refire time is effective at curbing the type of juke spam the developers said they are trying to get rid of.

                              The weapon switch speed is fast (relatively speaking). It compliments the other weapons, and provides more tactical opportunities.

                              Momentum is preserved through translocations. This means you can combine the tl with lift jumps which opens a world of possibilities.

                              Many have stated that the current tl values were random. That may be, and I fully expect the values to change when Epic takes on weapon tweaking. But if they were random values, the authors of those values were really lucky. The values work really well, and I really enjoy playing CTF currently despite there only being two maps.
                              BeyondUnreal Podcast
                              r/UnrealTournament Moderator

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by cafe View Post
                                There is a lot wrong with the current translocator other than the limit. Which is why most people would prefer to start at something similar to the ut99 style and work from there. It's way too exhausting to argue every single point regarding this thing. I suggest we at least try UT99 style balancing.
                                Okay, but I'd really like to know what those are. Just saying "go back to UT values" doesn't tell me why they don't work the way they are now. Primarily, I'd just like to see someone post a video or something equally descriptive about what scenarios they run out of translocator charges right now because I can't find those scenarios myself during regular gameplay... if you're trying to appease me anyway
                                HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                                BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X