Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Onslaught & Warfare: Discussion, Suggestions and Improvements

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

    Onslaught & Warfare: Discussion, Suggestions and Improvements

    Just as a bit of a preface, there was a several page long discussion going on in these forums talking about Onslaught and Warfare balance that was recently deleted because for some odd reason, the original thread poster has the rights to delete the entire thread on these boards. Rather than risk having another thread full of contributions deleted by another member, I wanted to continue that discussion as much as possible. I still have the last page of that thread open in my browser so I'm going to be quoting most of what I thought was valuable discussion there in the hopes that we can continue that discussion without the risk of having it deleted once again.

    Originally posted by Veggie_D
    Y'all are funny.

    ONS was great. WAR was great too. Yes, this is possible.



    Fellow zealots of UT2004, we must admit, for all its glory Onslaught did have a serious Enemy-Prime stalemate problem. For situations like these, the flag-like "capping" mechanic of Warfare's Orb, while arguably imperfect, was on balance a marked improvement.

    Whether you're clanning or pubbing … with the Orb, regaining a lost Prime Node and turning the map back in your team's favor is just a matter of teamwork, coordination and quick counterattacks … without the Orb, it's almost always an exercise in futility.



    Best solution: keep the Orb, build some maps in Warfare's own particular … idiom (sir?) … and then also build more maps in the manner of community-Onslaught, circa 2006, with many Nodes, and multiple Primes to break open the stalemates.

    Easy, peasy.
    Originally posted by sanch3z
    I have an idea for ONS/WAR also: instead of having nodes linked just have them all be standalone and each time a team takes control of a node it damages the enemy core slightly. Whichever team caps the most nodes drains the enemy teams core and wins the round. With this there would be advantages in gameplay:

    1. action all over the map not just in predetermined routes that follow the node link pattern
    2. teams are not locked down to their core base and there are no stalemates that involve trying to get the primary node back for long periods of time. you would be able to attack any node at any time.
    3. since there would be no need to actually attack the core the base could have some kind of defensive boundary which protects against spawn rapeage at the core and also protects against enemies destroying the vehicles at core making a comeback even harder.

    This would essentially turn every node into a countdown node (UT3 WAR).

    Originally posted by Veggie_D
    I don't know, compared to ONS/WAR, this idea seems like it taketh away a lot more than it giveth — "Vehicle-DOM" sounds about right.

    Having most of the Nodes linked in ONS/WAR focuses the action into "fronts", forcing opponents into conflict more often, which heightens the action and makes the game less campy.

    It's also another example of where, if this be your cup of tea, then great — it only takes the barest minimum of Kismet/Blueprint work to rig this up in as many Warfare maps as you care to make. No change or reduction or reinvention of the game type necessary.

    Originally posted by Psychosis
    Originally posted by Fullbleed
    Maybe these issues wouldn't be in the game if the Shock Rifle was toned down considerably
    You hit the nail on the head. In all your examples, you point out the same thing -- there are several vehicles that are susceptible to this one particular weapon. Yet instead of taking the simpler solution and nerfing the OP Shock Rifle, you'd rather make all vehicles harder to kill in general? That seems unnecessary when we can just tweak the SR. It doesn't have to be much, but I've always thought it was a little too OP (even without hitting the plasma b4lls with the beam).

    Originally posted by sanch3z
    I have an idea for ONS/WAR also: instead of having nodes linked just have them all be standalone and each time a team takes control of a node it damages the enemy core slightly. Whichever team caps the most nodes drains the enemy teams core and wins the round.
    That's basically how Battlefield's Conquest mode works (only instead of 'draining a power core' you're subtracting their tickets). I like how the nodes are chained together in ONS; as Veggie_D said, it focuses the action into fronts. You pretty much HAVE to battle in order to get ahead. In BF's Conquest, people spend more time avoiding the enemy than confronting them, trying to slip around the one contested control point to snag all the empty ones. That (IMO) is boring.

    Originally posted by Fullbleed
    Nerfing the Shock Rifle was a step in the right direction, sure. But vehicles still need something to compensate for their massive hitboxes and the fact they are much easier to hit and damage than players. This is what vehicle armor in UT3 accomplishes.
    Originally posted by Psychosis
    I generally agree with you on this and like the vehicle armor, I just don't want them to be giant killing machines that have to take dozens of hits before going down. I think in UT3 they might be a tad too powerful. There's probably a sweet spot somewhere between 2k4's and UT3's vehicles.
    Originally posted by Wail
    Onslaught had a serious "winning-team-snowball" problem, not an enemy-prime problem. Games rarely stalled out at the enemy prime unless the power cores were extremely difficult to get to or the prime nodes were directly visible from the core bases (which is purely a map design issue). I honestly can't think of any maps where that was the case. Maybe ONS-Adara. I didn't think the orb added a whole lot to resolving any of the issues Onslaught had, mostly because what was needed in Onslaught was an effective comeback mechanic to counteract the effects of one team controlling most of the map resources.
    Originally posted by Psychosis
    Originally posted by Wail
    I didn't think the orb added a whole lot to resolving any of the issues Onslaught had, mostly because what was needed in Onslaught was an effective comeback mechanic to counteract the effects of one team controlling most of the map resources.
    That's exactly what the orb was supposed to accomplish - busting a well defended node, giving the underdog the chance to mount a comeback. I felt the problem had more to do with a lack of teamwork than the orb itself. If you've got a lone wolf out there with an orb, yeah he might get lucky and take out the node, but it'll be recovered in no time. But if the orb runner had a good chunk of his team escorting him, that team's comeback was much more likely. So how do you get people to work more as a team? My first thought is built-in support for voice chat. No one has time to really stop and type (or read) messages, and there's so many third party voice options (teamspeak, ventrilo, etc), good luck getting everyone to use the same service in pub games. I think the tech has advanced enough to the point that adding some basic voip service to the game (or at least 'officially' integrating one of the third party options) should be relatively easy.

    Originally posted by Wail
    Originally posted by Fullbleed
    Lock on orbs with Scorpion really weren't overpowered, the effective range of the vehicle was close range only. It lost to Hellbender turrets, Darkwalkers, Goliaths, Nemesis, turrets, Mantas, and pretty much any vehicle that could stay out of this effective range. The risk/reward of the Scorpion is being able to drive well enough to not die so you can close the gap and utilize the weapon. The orbs also only lock onto to vehicles, meaning you have to have good aim to kill a food soldier.

    There truly aren't any "overpowered" vehicles in UT3, but there definitely are some underpowered or wonky ones. None of them need to be nerfed. Most of the vehicles in UT2k4 besides the Manta and Goliath were underpowered, and the fact that a lot of the vehicles in UT3 don't pathetically lose to a dude on foot 90% of the time is a huge step in the right direction for a vehicle based momde in my opinion.
    I come from the opposite perspective, namely that the vehicles in UT3 were pretty poorly implemented. Even the good vehicles didn't feel satisfying to use, besides maybe the Goliath. That's a sad state of affairs. I actually played a few hundred hours of UT3 and for awhile I was very active in trying to promote the game. But the vehicle gametypes (vCTF & WAR) were the worst gametypes bar none. Warfare broke with the arena deathmatch formula in a way that wasn't satisfying while simultaneously not doing enough to create deep gameplay with niches for both vehicles and footsoldiers in the way that games like Battlefield do.

    The Manta in UT3 was really truly broken, IMO. It was broken in UT2004 too, but that brokenness was mitigated by a lot of factors. Weapon switch time, more maneuverability on players, less maneuverability on vehicles, better weapon loadouts at weapon lockers, etc. The Manta in UT3 had no legitimate counters except the Scorpion and an Avril. The thing is literally so maneuverable that it can easily dodge any projectile you shoot at it unless the driver decides to drive straight at you.
    Remove the aesthetics and phrase it a different way: Every 30 seconds a powerup spawns that makes you run 10x as fast, strafe at 3x speed, jump high, and kill anyone you touch instantly, the only drawback being you've got a marginally increased side profile and you're stuck with a powered up Link Gun for a weapon. It's not a surprise that a lot of people don't feel that it fits within UT. Unless we're talking about high player counts (16+) that thing doesn't sound balanced at all ... And it isn't. Everyone would get in one if they could, pretty much.

    One of the things I feel that's worth pointing out is that neither UT2004 ONS nor Warfare seem to have been designed for the player counts they were usually played at. When you played ONS with 5v5 teams or 8v8 teams, vehicles behaved quite differently than at 16v16. In 16v16 maps flying high in a Raptor could get you killed, meanwhile in a 5v5 or 8v8 match, you're probably looking at maybe one guy shooting you : In that scenario the Raptor is still a big asset because the pilot controls the battle, not the footsoldier. I've lost more duels on foot against Raptor pilots than I've won, and even if I kill the vehicle the guy can still jump out and kill me, or land his dying raptor on my head while he laughs and takes down my node. Either way, it's a fast paced game where vehicles are disposable but come back quickly and are always present on the battlefield. High player counts modified the experience because you can reliably expect a lot more Avrils in the air, and a lot more people able to plink at big vehicle targets from long range with Shock.

    If the design of [Vehicle Gamemode] is supposed to be such that players on foot are not supposed to be able to pose a credible threat to vehicles with the 10+ weapons they're carrying around besides the Avril, then vehicles need to have substantially longer respawn times, be less of an easily disposable resource, and be much harder to utilize effectively (ala Battlefield series). I think that's reasonable to pursue in a new gamemode, along with player classes and other such things that work more into a rock-paper-scissors balancing setup, but I don't feel that's appropriate for the ONS/War gametype which thus far has tried to be mostly similar to existing UT gameplay.



    As a bit of an aside, I just played some UT3 to refamiliarize myself with it, and the big thing that bugs me about all of the vehicles is they all feel very weightless. I don't know whether that's an aesthetic issue with poor sound design, or a consequence of the physics that they use, but none of them give me the sensation of "weight" that vehicles in UT2004 do. It's funny because UT2004 vehicles are definitely more floaty in an absolute sense: The UT2004 Manta can get far more air, as can the Scorpion and the Hellbender, but they at least feel like they have some mass to them. UT3's vehicles don't.

    Originally posted by Veggie_D
    Originally posted by Wail
    Onslaught had a serious "winning-team-snowball" problem, not an enemy-prime problem. Games rarely stalled out at the enemy prime unless the power cores were extremely difficult to get to or the prime nodes were directly visible from the core bases (which is purely a map design issue). I honestly can't think of any maps where that was the case. Maybe ONS-Adara.
    Fair enough, though, whether they stalled out at Enemy Prime or ended quickly at Enemy Core, the fact of the matter is that too frequently most of the match was contested between Core and Prime in Onslaught. And if not that, then some other fairly predictable chokepoint, depending on the map.

    Some community maps did address this fairly well by adding lots of Nodes, with always at least two Primes. Those made for a different, but very fun game, though they tended to cater best to a large player count (which also made for a fun game).

    Originally posted by Wail
    I didn't think the orb added a whole lot to resolving any of the issues Onslaught had, mostly because what was needed in Onslaught was an effective comeback mechanic to counteract the effects of one team controlling most of the map resources.

    Have you never seen this very thing accomplished with the Orb? I can hardly begin to express how frequently this sequence occurs in maps like Floodgate or Downtown: from controlling zero Nodes, an Orb runner recaptures Prime instantly, a savvy teammate in front immediately puts fire on Center, pushing enemy respawns all the way back to Enemy Prime … and likely as not that team has gone from Core vulnerable to even balance or better, all in mere seconds.

    There are indeed valid criticisms for the Orb, but this isn't one of them. Effective counterattacks are vastly more common in Warfare than Onslaught, and in large part we have the Orb to thank for that.

    Originally posted by Wail
    Originally posted by Veggie_D
    Have you never seen this very thing accomplished with the Orb? I can hardly begin to express how frequently this sequence occurs in maps like Floodgate or Downtown: from controlling zero Nodes, an Orb runner recaptures Prime instantly, a savvy teammate in front immediately puts fire on Center, pushing enemy respawns all the way back to Enemy Prime … and likely as not that team has gone from Core vulnerable to even balance or better, all in mere seconds.
    There are indeed valid criticisms for the Orb, but this isn't one of them. Effective counterattacks are vastly more common in Warfare than Onslaught, and in large part we have the Orb to thank for that.
    I don't disagree that's possible, but what was much more likely was the winning team used the orb to keep the prime locked. The problem to me was always that both teams always had orbs, so it never really served specifically as a comeback mechanic, it was just something there that made node ownership in a game swing way more rapidly either way, particularly in the mid-game where I don't want nodes swinging in ownership.
    Originally posted by Psychosis
    Originally posted by Wail
    The problem to me was always that both teams always had orbs, so it never really served specifically as a comeback mechanic, it was just something there that made node ownership in a game swing way more rapidly either way, particularly in the mid-game where I don't want nodes swinging in ownership.
    Good point; perhaps instead of both teams having orbs, only the team whose prime node is vulnerable has it? Or, the team whose Core has the least amount of power remaining?
    Originally posted by Veggie_D
    Originally posted by Wail
    I don't disagree that's possible, but what was much more likely was the winning team used the orb to keep the prime locked. The problem to me was always that both teams always had orbs, so it never really served specifically as a comeback mechanic, it was just something there that made node ownership in a game swing way more rapidly either way, particularly in the mid-game where I don't want nodes swinging in ownership.
    But this is a solved problem in most maps (e.g. Floodgate, Torlan, Serenity) — due to the inherent difference in distance that must be covered for each team's Orb run. The defending team, with its shorter path from Core to Prime, has a wider window of opportunity to stage their comeback, as compared with the attacking team, who must (usually) advance their Orb all the way from Core to Enemy Prime.

    And even then, once in place the attacking team's Orb carrier is still challenged to stay alive and constantly tethered to Enemy Prime, lest the defenders slip in at the right moment and cap the Node out from underneath them. If the defending team mounts a coordinated assault, it's more than possible to clear out enough of the attackers' reinforcements to make this happen.


    However, I do agree that, for maps that include Orb spawners at Prime nodes (e.g. Downtown, Onyx), the ease with which an attacking team can hold Enemy Prime hurts gameplay. (Although this doesn't explain away the problem fully either — Downtown's fault actually lies more in the ability to roll heavy, dominating vehicles like the Goliath and Hellbender up over the bollards and onto that upper deck.)
    Originally posted by sanch3z
    Orb spawners should not be at nodes, they should be at the cores only.. This helps a team that is pushed back to their core make a comeback while keeping the map balanced since the enemy team(Team B) most likely has a larger travel distance from Team B core to Team A prime than team A core to Team A prime.

    I do not mind the UT3 Orb, I hated it at first but it grew on me. Not enough to love it but enough to not mind it.. The vehicle to infantry balance of UT3 probably irritated me most about UT3..

    Originally posted by JoeWilcox
    The Orb was an attempt at bringing the concept of momentum shift to the game. For example, in CTF, one well timed attack can completely shift the momentum of a match, shattering a solid defensive stand and forcing a team to adjust. As many have rightfully pointed out, ONS suffered from "the game is decided in the first 2 minutes" syndrome. Once you started to fall behind, it was nearly impossible, given even teams, to come back. The Orb solved this issue but not without bringing it's own baggage. In retrospect, I think there are are other ways to balance this and I'm sure Steve has many thoughts on the subject.
    Originally posted by Veggie_D
    Originally posted by JoeWilcox
    The Orb was an attempt at bringing the concept of momentum shift to the game. … ONS suffered from "the game is decided in the first 2 minutes" syndrome. Once you started to fall behind, it was nearly impossible, given even teams, to come back. The Orb solved this issue but not without bringing it's own baggage. In retrospect, I think there are are other ways to balance this and I'm sure Steve has many thoughts on the subject.
    Do share! I think that adding a dose of the flag-runner's adrenaline rush to the game worked out brilliantly. Certainly there are refinements to be made, but I hope that whatever the next iteration turns out to be, it still prizes this mechanic.
    Originally posted by Wail
    I think the biggest problems I always had with it were that you could literally swap ownership of a node with the orb. I think most people who didn't care that much for it would rather see a choice of: (a) Destroy a Node or (b) Build a Node, but not both.

    Even with that change I'm not totally sold on the orb concept. I see what it's trying to accomplish and appreciate that, but it just doesn't really strike me as a must-have innovation. Maybe because I'm not the type of player who wants to be the VIP orb-runner extraordinaire who dictates the pace of the map. Especially in public games it's just such a deciding factor that having one clueless person grab the orb can lose the match for your team. Either way, I don't think there's an easy please-everyone solution nor a solution that will make every ONS/WAR match a good one. We just need to figure out what worked, what didn't, and how we can design good things going forward (that hopefully mitigate possible design problems common to ONS/WAR matches & maps).

    Some quick suggestions I'll throw out there:

    1. Nodes connected to a power core are always invulnerable while building. - Essentially addressing the problem that a team on its backfoot usually doesn't have a chance to get back up on its feet simply because building that prime node is usually the biggest point of contention. If it takes 3/4 of your team to get the prime node up, there's not much left to throw at attacking the other nodes you need to take to keep pressure off of your prime.
    In a general map-design sense it's probably not a good idea to have prime nodes totally exposed like you see on, say, ONS-Torlan, but I think it's unrealistic to expect every map to have some kind of geometry surrounding the prime node to prevent it from getting plinked down from a distance. Making a building prime shielded from damage would at least give a losing team a chance to get their prime up and get attackers in position to try and retake other nodes.

    2. Nodes further away from your power core take longer to build and/or have less HP. I tend to like the idea that a team's core can't channel as much energy to distant nodes, therefore they are easier to destroy and slower to build. This would help comebacks by making it easier to break the winning team's advantage. Exact parameters for formulaic adjustments to node build speed / health would need to be hashed out, or possibly left in the hands of the mapper (since some maps might only have 3 nodes, but some might have 28, looking at you ONS-Maelstrom).

    3. Nodes give different vehicle loadouts based on the controlling team - The closer an attacking team gets to the enemy power core, the less resources a node will give them. (Ex. Node 1 is the prime node for Red Team. When controlled by Red Team it grants them 2 Scorpions and a Hellbender. When controlled by Blue team it grants them only 1 Scorpion.)
    Originally posted by Veggie_D
    Quote Originally Posted by Wail View Post
    having one clueless person grab the orb can lose the match for your team.
    I don't share your summary disdain for the Orb, but the above is a good point. It's a well known weakness in pub Warfare as it stands now.

    I've long thought the best remedy for this would be to allow players to "pull rank" — say, if you have a higher score, or a higher cumulative score dating back to the previous match, then, by way of an Impact Hammer EMP, you gain the ability to dispossess a lower-ranked teammate of the Orb (and shield belt / powerups too — why not?).

    In fact there probably doesn't even need to be a rank/comparison mechanic at all. Just the teammate EMP could be sufficient, since the clueless teammate will almost certainly be less adept at movement and easy to run down; in that way the notion of "rank" neatly sorts itself out.

    There are also plenty of instances where it'd be an awesome bit of teamwork to voluntarily dispossess oneself of powerups in this way, so as to hand them off to a teammate who can make better use of them. The single best solution is probably to follow the lead of "DropFlag" and "ThrowWeapon", and offer a "DropPowerups" console command — but there's no reason this couldn't be made redundant with the involuntary Impact EMP method as well.

    Originally posted by Wail
    1. Nodes connected to a power core are always invulnerable while building.
    Maybe, though I don't like adding another arbitrary line item into the rule book, and making this game any more complicated than it already is to the average newcomer. I also think some objectively undesirable side effects are lurking here. For example:

    - Defenders touch their Prime
    - Attackers wipe out Defenders (because that's all they can do — their attention is not divided by killing the Node)
    - Everyone twiddles thumbs for X seconds waiting for the invulnerable Node to finish ticking slowly upward
    - During this time the Attackers can easily fortify their control over the space around Enemy Prime.

    I'm not 100% sure, but I can see this actually having made the problem worse.


    Originally posted by Wail
    2. Nodes further away from your power core take longer to build
    I really like the seed of this idea. It appeals to intuition. The longer the wire, the greater the "resistance". I'd keep a Node's actual health value constant, but there's no reason you couldn't just multiply the damage to achieve a similar effect.

    I'd also expand on this "electrical circuit analogy". The less powered-up the Attackers' intermediate nodes are, the greater the "resistance" — and so the extremity Node's build time is slower, and it's more susceptible to damage — since one could imagine it's that much more difficult for the Core to deliver power out to the furthest Node.

    This adds more value, and immediate consequence, to the achievement of almost-but-not-quite taking down an enemy Node before losing yours behind you, and conversely, of neglecting to rebuild your team's locked but damaged Node.


    Originally posted by Wail
    3. Nodes give different vehicle loadouts based on the controlling team
    Also good! Easily understood and implemented.

    I might also correlate this with the idea-fork from #2 — the more "resistance" from not-fully-powered Nodes behind you there is, the fewer vehicles you get at the extremity Node, and/or the longer the respawn times are for the vehicles/turrets you do get.
    Hopefully this is helpful in continuing a productive discussion going forward about ways in which Onslaught / Warfare can be effectively reconciled and improved.
    Join Project: Open Tournament: Discord | YouTube

    Subscribe to /r/UnrealSeries - The subreddit for free & uncensored discussion of Unreal series games!

    Unreal Prime Weapons: Impact Hammer | Enforcer | BioRifle | Shock Rifle | Link Gun | Ripper | Minigun | Flak Cannon | Rocket Launcher | Sniper Rifle | Grenade Launcher | Dispersion Pistol

    #2
    I seem to recall way back (can't find any sources now, so maybe my memory is just shot) that the concept for the warfare gametype was quite different than what we got (which was basically onslaught with some changes). I recall discussion of much more massive multi-map enviroments, long-term games, and resource management. Perhaps the idea was scrapped because of time constraints, technical limitations, or maybe it worked, but just wasn't that exciting, I don't know. Anyway, assuming my memory isn't faulty, and I'm not going insane, I was thinking Onslaught could become a happy medium between old onslaught and current warfare, and Warfare could become what it was always destined to be. My two cents.

    Comment


      #3
      You are correct Vampire, Warfare was originally going to be called Conquest and be much more expansive. The reasoning we got for what we got was Midway's pressure to get it done. This was also a reason for the UI we got.

      Now that there are really no limitations or publisher interference, it makes sense to re-explore these ideas. And I suspect that over time, they will.

      UT4 modding discussion: irc.globalgamers.net #UTModders
      Contrib Digest | UT2341 - Henrik's UT4 Dev Blog | Twitter

      Comment


        #4
        Any point in making 4-team ONS/WAR/CQ possible (depending if TDM4/CTF4 and the like are implemented before it)?
        Also known as musilowski.
        UE user since 1998.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ojrask View Post
          Any point in making 4-team ONS/WAR/CQ possible (depending if TDM4/CTF4 and the like are implemented before it)?
          Guess it depends on how popular those game types really were in the past. I was a pure CTF player and I can honestly say that I absolutely hated CTF4, but that's just me.
          http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/325/16447qq9.png http://img233.imageshack.us/img233/7066/2364.png

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Wail View Post
            well that's fortuitous … big ups for fishing all that out

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
              well that's fortuitous … big ups for fishing all that out
              Sure thing. I thought we were having a pretty good discussion there, and it's silly that one person can singlehandedly delete all the time and energy people put into it.

              Based on your last post there I'd clarify that I don't have any real animosity towards the orb, I just think it was a mixed bag of good and bad. The upside to the orb implementation is it's just a map actor. You don't need to have an orb in a map, so if you want a map without it then it's simple. I would prefer if it weren't part of the core ruleset though, because I felt like it didn't succeed (in my opinion) enough to be a must-have game element. But I'm okay with it being around, I just want to refine on the core ONS game rules in a way that isn't totally disruptive, and like it or not the Orb was a game-changer for how ONS/WAR played, but which addresses some of the weaker points of the gameplay.
              Join Project: Open Tournament: Discord | YouTube

              Subscribe to /r/UnrealSeries - The subreddit for free & uncensored discussion of Unreal series games!

              Unreal Prime Weapons: Impact Hammer | Enforcer | BioRifle | Shock Rifle | Link Gun | Ripper | Minigun | Flak Cannon | Rocket Launcher | Sniper Rifle | Grenade Launcher | Dispersion Pistol

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Wail View Post
                Sure thing. I thought we were having a pretty good discussion there, and it's silly that one person can singlehandedly delete all the time and energy people put into it.

                Based on your last post there I'd clarify that I don't have any real animosity towards the orb, I just think it was a mixed bag of good and bad. The upside to the orb implementation is it's just a map actor. You don't need to have an orb in a map, so if you want a map without it then it's simple. I would prefer if it weren't part of the core ruleset though, because I felt like it didn't succeed (in my opinion) enough to be a must-have game element. But I'm okay with it being around, I just want to refine on the core ONS game rules in a way that isn't totally disruptive, and like it or not the Orb was a game-changer for how ONS/WAR played, but which addresses some of the weaker points of the gameplay.
                Agreed — even though I came to like the Orb just fine, mostly, I'd also have liked to have seen a stock WAR map or two that had been designed for Orb-less play, in the fashion of what community ONS maps eventually tended toward: lots of space, lots of Nodes, and multiple Primes. WAR-Dusk is one that, while relatively smallish, probably could have worked that way.

                Maybe instead of (or in addition to) offering "No Orb" as a mutator, a better way to go is to have "No Orb" be a per-map ini/config option, just like for a link setup — or better yet, as part of the link setups.

                Comment


                  #9
                  using the node itself to teleport from controlled node to node or core needs to come back. Not sure why it was removed in UT3. Having to look around for the teleporter was dumb. Yeah over play time one would memorize where they were but separate teleporters was a clunky mechanism. Make it simple, make the node itself a teleporter, such as in UT2k4.
                  DANG YOU UT2K4 KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by sanch3z View Post
                    using the node itself to teleport from controlled node to node or core needs to come back. Not sure why it was removed in UT3. Having to look around for the teleporter was dumb. Yeah over play time one would memorize where they were but separate teleporters was a clunky mechanism. Make it simple, make the node itself a teleporter, such as in UT2k4.
                    I would like to see this comeback also. How about being able to lockdown the node where you spawn at after death, like in UT2004. I would also like to be able to link to a players gun like in UT2004, and maybe also UT3 way, let's have a choice.
                    YouTube Channel

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I can't say I've re-read the entire thread, but the extent it deals with the Orb, I realize it was mostly intended to counter the EPSR (enemy prime stalemate redundancy) .

                      I don't know if this was intended or not, but the Orb increased TEAMPLAY. It's not JUST that people were towing and flinging the orbcarrier (in and of itself a reason to keep it), people were returning to the prime in their Mantas and Raptors to go get the orbcarrier. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that in any game I've played.

                      Plus, on the individual side, there's a knack to being the orbcarrier, the way that some running backs in football are better at getting first downs and touchdowns (Marcus Allen immediately comes to mind). There's a knack for knowing when to release from the tow, there's a knack for waiting for an opening or dashing right in, a knack for sneaking around the backside or what I like to call, "walking in the front door." There's a knack for knowing when to immediately cap the node or to hang back and let it be built in order to save the orb for the next node down the line. There's a knack for being a footie near the orb, both offensively and defensively.

                      IMHO, it has added a whole other dimension to the game and should stay. Maybe it doesn't need to be on every map, but most.
                      Last edited by JZL; 05-20-2014, 10:13 PM.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        OK having read the earlier comments . . .

                        I think EPSR was more of an issue than you're recalling, Wail. It was an issue on all the big maps like Red Planet, Dria, and Sovereign (?), and Dria even had a secondary prime.

                        I like the idea of making the orb not an instant node swap. Maybe if the node is open or partially built, the orb will cap the node. When the node belongs to the other side, the orb merely knocks it down, making it open. Thus the orbcarrier can either wait for the node to be knocked down by fire, and then cap it, or knock it down with the orb and only then build it up with link(s).

                        On the idea of protecting the prime node, why can't we sometimes have turrets that have a Paladin-like force-field?

                        I'm totally against the idea of having more experienced or higher-scoring players taking the orb and/or power-ups from noobs or lower scoring players. That's just asking for noobs to get ****** and never play again.

                        I'm not sure what to think about sanchez' idea of a non-linear countdown node (Battlefield ticket) structure (I think Titanfall Hardpoint does this,too). Without giving it a lot of thought it seems like some maps should be and are designed for bottlenecks and others aren't. Maybe a lot of those types of issues would be solved by having more than one prime on more maps.

                        Dr. Strangelove: Or how I learned to stop worrying and love teh orb!

                        Comment


                          #13
                          So many good points!

                          Originally posted by sanch3z View Post
                          using the node itself to teleport from controlled node to node or core needs to come back. Not sure why it was removed in UT3. Having to look around for the teleporter was dumb. Yeah over play time one would memorize where they were but separate teleporters was a clunky mechanism. Make it simple, make the node itself a teleporter, such as in UT2k4.
                          Originally posted by Kronos[X] View Post
                          How about being able to lockdown the node where you spawn at after death, like in UT2004.
                          Originally posted by Kronos[X] View Post
                          I would also like to be able to link to a players gun like in UT2004, and maybe also UT3 way, let's have a choice.
                          Originally posted by JZL View Post
                          I don't know if this was intended or not, but the Orb increased TEAMPLAY. It's not JUST that people were towing and flinging the orbcarrier (in and of itself a reason to keep it), people were returning to the prime in their Mantas and Raptors to go get the orbcarrier. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that in any game I've played.
                          Originally posted by JZL View Post
                          Plus, on the individual side, there's a knack to being the orbcarrier … IMHO, it has added a whole other dimension to the game and should stay. Maybe it doesn't need to be on every map, but most.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by JZL View Post
                            I'm not sure what to think about sanchez' idea of a non-linear countdown node (Battlefield ticket) structure (I think Titanfall Hardpoint does this,too). Without giving it a lot of thought it seems like some maps should be and are designed for bottlenecks and others aren't. Maybe a lot of those types of issues would be solved by having more than one prime on more maps.
                            not saying every map has to be like that, just a changeup for varieties sake.. Yes it would be very much like Titanfall Hardpoint except there would be a core area that had protected player and vehicle spawns, which would help with stalemates since enemies could not go sabotage core vehicles and spawn kill.
                            DANG YOU UT2K4 KIDS! GET OFF MY LAWN!

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by JZL View Post
                              I can't say I've re-read the entire thread, but the extent it deals with the Orb, I realize it was mostly intended to counter the EPSR (enemy prime stalemate redundancy) .

                              I don't know if this was intended or not, but the Orb increased TEAMPLAY. It's not JUST that people were towing and flinging the orbcarrier (in and of itself a reason to keep it), people were returning to the prime in their Mantas and Raptors to go get the orbcarrier. I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like that in any game I've played.

                              Plus, on the individual side, there's a knack to being the orbcarrier, the way that some running backs in football are better at getting first downs and touchdowns (Marcus Allen immediately comes to mind). There's a knack for knowing when to release from the tow, there's a knack for waiting for an opening or dashing right in, a knack for sneaking around the backside or what I like to call, "walking in the front door." There's a knack for knowing when to immediately cap the node or to hang back and let it be built in order to save the orb for the next node down the line. There's a knack for being a footie near the orb, both offensively and defensively.

                              IMHO, it has added a whole other dimension to the game and should stay. Maybe it doesn't need to be on every map, but most.

                              Adding my two cents here: That element of the gameplay is precisely what I didn't like. I'm not a VCTF fan, I tried it and never liked it, and I'd much rather play standard CTF. One of the reasons why I didn't care for the Orb is it essentially brought in VCTF gameplay into ONS, but at least in VCTF you can prevent an enemy from capturing by taking his flag. In WAR there was no similar counterplay against the Orb.

                              I would much rather keep the focus in Onslaught on (a) building and blowing up nodes and (b) fragging other players, rather than adding in this additional element that is essentially about avoiding conflict and dropping a man onto some static end zone. You could definitely sneak around and hit nodes in ONS, or ping them from a distance, but you typically had to spend some time to actually take down a node and even more to build it, which gave the opposing team time to respond and create conflict.
                              Join Project: Open Tournament: Discord | YouTube

                              Subscribe to /r/UnrealSeries - The subreddit for free & uncensored discussion of Unreal series games!

                              Unreal Prime Weapons: Impact Hammer | Enforcer | BioRifle | Shock Rifle | Link Gun | Ripper | Minigun | Flak Cannon | Rocket Launcher | Sniper Rifle | Grenade Launcher | Dispersion Pistol

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X