Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Onslaught & Warfare: Discussion, Suggestions and Improvements

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

    #16
    Originally posted by JZL View Post
    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]
    I can see that. Maybe it could be implemented in some other, "nicer" way … but I think it's a problem that does need addressed somehow. One lost newbie let loose on a meandering Orb odyssey, and boy it's game over fast.

    Can't really think of a good alternative just now, though. :|

    Comment


      #17
      Originally posted by Wail View Post
      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.
      You can lock down the contested Node with your Orb. And then you can shoot down the enemy Orb. Not exactly the same set of countermeasures as CTF, but then, of course it isn't.

      The rush of being the "flag" carrier — and defending against it — was a glorious addition to Onslaught IMO. Though, I allow that, if you dislike V/CTF to begin with, then this point probably doesn't resonate with you.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
        You can lock down the contested Node with your Orb. And then you can shoot down the enemy Orb. Not exactly the same set of countermeasures as CTF, but then, of course it isn't.

        The rush of being the "flag" carrier — and defending against it — was a glorious addition to Onslaught IMO. Though, I allow that, if you dislike V/CTF to begin with, then this point probably doesn't resonate with you.
        It's a pretty different scenario than taking the enemy team's flag though. To take an enemy's flag you just need a guy roughly in position to get to the enemy flag before the enemy FC reaches it. Given you've got a translocator, it's not that hard at all. In order to lock down your node with the Orb, your team must have coordinated having the Orb carrier in position at that node for the moment when the enemy Orb carrier is coming in, a scenario that's even less likely given that the maps are larger. One takes maybe 3 seconds and the other takes 30+ seconds. Granted, the super-linear map designs of most WAR maps made this more likely, but if it only works on linear node path maps then I'm not too thrilled by that design choice either.
        Join Project: Open Tournament: OpenTournamentGame.com | Project Trello | 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


          #19
          Another tactic is, if you're racing the enemy Orb carrier to a Node, you see that you're going to lose that race, and you know you've got decent support coming in behind you, then go right ahead and concede the Node.

          Meanwhile, just prepare to cap it back 10-12 seconds later after the lock clears. You as Orb carrier will stay back, out of sight, and off-radar, so you can come in hot after a few seconds — while your teammates advance immediately in a wave to lay fire on and around the Node to disrupt and distract the enemy's defense.

          Then once you've capped, it's your team's turn to defend against their incoming. And so goes the dance.



          There are a whole slew of little Orb running and defensing tactics like these that work well in Warfare, and are a lot of fun. Unless you're determined to find some, there really aren't any reasons that Orb play necessarily has to be as frustrating as you describe.

          Comment


            #20
            Thanks for moving the thread over. There was a lot of good discussion in there.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by sanch3z View Post
              not saying every map has to be like that, just a changeup for varieties sake..
              Took awhile to remember as it's not a popular map but Powersurge had the coundown node that directly damaged the opponents' core, so the elements should be there [What am I saying, Floodgate does, too-- DUH]. Yeah, it would be nice for variety. You may have said this already but you could do a map or maps where controlling the EP for a countdown begins to damage the core, with the option of allowing normal direct-hit damage to the core, or having the core protected, virutally making the map core-less like you said, or er, uh, just explicitly make the map coreless.
              You could do all sorts of things with this. You could make it so two specific nodes have to be held simultaneously (though briefly), either close together or far apart. You could put the nodes in hard-to-get-to places, like on mountaintops, caverns, towers, or even underwater.

              Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
              I can see that. Maybe it could be implemented in some other, "nicer" way … but I think it's a problem that does need addressed somehow. One lost newbie let loose on a meandering Orb odyssey, and boy it's game over fast.

              Can't really think of a good alternative just now, though. :|
              Yeah, that's a tough nut to crack. At a minimum you could put it in the pre-game tips, like where it says something like, "Be courteous, you were a n00b once, too." One could say "If you're a noob, let experienced players take the orb and power-ups until you have a better handle on gameplay and strategy." That could backfire if the n00b is an *******, but A-holes will be A-holes anyway.

              Originally posted by Wail View Post
              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.
              Since I've never been much of a CTF or vCTF player, I tend to forget the orb adds CTF elements.
              In general, what-Veggie_D-said. In particular, I disagree that the orb creates conflict avoidance. Many times I've tried to cap the flood node in Floodgate by dropping down off the ledge, only to be blasted into smithereens mid-air with a skilled combo shot. It can be like "kill the man with the ball".
              Last edited by JZL; 05-21-2014, 08:11 PM.

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by JZL View Post
                Since I've never been much of a CTF or vCTF player, I tend to forget the orb adds CTF elements.
                In general, what-Veggie_D-said. In particular, I disagree that the orb creates conflict avoidance. Many times I've tried to cap the flood node in Floodgate by dropping down off the ledge, only to be blasted into smithereens mid-air with a skilled combo shot. It can be like "kill the man with the ball".
                Sure. And I'm okay with you liking that element of the gameplay, but I'm not sold on it.
                I honestly think the single biggest problem with the Orb though is the rift it creates between public play and organized play. I played UT2004 publicly and in private scrims and found it enjoyable in both. In UT3, two guys on voicechat could completely dominate the game to the point where public servers became unenjoyable. Even the way you guys have mentioned pulling rank or knocking the Orb out of other players' possession is really weird to me. I have a lot of trepidation around a mechanic when it fosters this antagonism between players of different skill levels.
                Join Project: Open Tournament: OpenTournamentGame.com | Project Trello | 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


                  #23
                  I see your point, but a. the same thing could be said about noobs and any valuable limited element, be it the Goliath or the amp, the Nightshade or the Deemer, and b. do you remember pubbing back in 2k4 when the noobs would just hop on the nearest Manta and GO, without letting a single person hop on? Noobs'll be noobs.

                  I understand that part of the problem with UT is this "tension" between knowledgeable and inexperienced players. We're gonna disagree about this, but I think getting rid of the orb is a throwing the baby out with the bathwater sorta thing. Someone on these forums came up with "Easy to pick-up, hard to master."
                  Last edited by JZL; 05-22-2014, 08:59 PM.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    i'd just like to thank you guys for this thread and to Wail for saving it, while i haven't read it completely your posts are what the Epic guys really need eg "constructive" and well worded thoughts.

                    i'll be honest i did like playing ONS/WAR but was never part of a solid team so the play wasn't that much fun, i do think the idea of a built in voip would be great for the team gametypes but from recent gaming i notice that most groups/clans/teams use external software making it hard for randoms to fit in.

                    i'm really looking forward to the new UT with vehicles and i hope to see you in your tanks

                    Thanks again for a wonderful thread , keep it going
                    UT40K:The Chosen - Warhammer 40,000 for UE4
                    ut40kgeodav - UE4 Tutorials

                    Comment


                      #25
                      The thing I really could not grasp why epic seemed to be hellbent on fixing the problem of coming back from having no nodes in the most awkward way possible. They introduced the orb instead of taking a good look at the maps themselves. Of the retail stock maps, only one map wasn't a race to taking down their prime node: ONS-dawn. The reason was simple: it didn't have a prime node. And that's the entire crux.

                      The inherit problem with a node setup as in Torlan was that in order to come back, you not only had to wipe out all resistance and build the node (1) but then destroy TWO nodes in completely different areas (2). (1) wasn't so hard to do as it sounds: while your the defending team focuses on regaining the node, the attacking team has to divide their efforts into either defending the node or attacking the core. As such, with teams being equal, this can be expected to work without too much difficulty (especially if the prime node is closer to the core than to the other nodes near that primary). Actually defending that primary node (2) is A LOT harder, as the 'defending' team is forced to split three ways between defending a node and taking out two nodes while the attacking team has just one objective: break the primary. It's certainly not exact mathematics, but I'd still say that you need roughly a team THREE TIMES AS BIG OR SKILLED (for this situation) to actually lock the primary which is needed to put the situation back on even ground.

                      On dawn and maps with similar setups, the dynamic was totally different. I'd even say there actually WAS a dynamic. Building a left or a right node was a risk, as putting team effort there meant there was less team effort defending the center...which meant that the node the attacking team was building could be isolated quickly. Comebacks were far more common there, and clan matches were way more fun (you actually had teams pushing either left or right of the base while others held the center). At the end, I don't think I even saw a competitive map pool that HAD just a prime node going for it.

                      Epic didn't take much notice, though. While custom maps like Grit, Ahebban, DryIce or UrbanNoLevi (which featured a different node setup than the default map) proved that matches really could be dynamic and the default maps (or even just the default node setups) simply weren't good enough, Epic went with an approach they shouldn't have been doing in the first place. Instead of fixing the default node setup on the maps, they went with all other sorts of tweaks. Some were good (like those lone nodes), but the orb really shouldn't have been in the game in the first place. It broke more than it fixed.


                      As far as suggested things from others go: I like most of them. And I'm very glad these posts were saved because they give a lot of interesting feedback. I'll think about them and give some more info on that later.
                      My UT threads (latest: my take on defensive items, poll on the melee weapon's alt fire and My take on the storyline)

                      Comment


                        #26
                        It *should* be difficult to come back from having your primary taken. Perhaps not to the extent that it was, but if you overcompensate, you just get a game of ping pong which gets boring as heck. I like when a map can be over in 10-20 minutes potentially.

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

                        Comment


                          #27
                          It should be difficult but not impossible. A lot of Onslaught matches devolved into this pattern, even on larger maps, both in pubs and competition, where one team would get off to a real good start, gain an advantage, and then take control of the enemy prime (EP). However, they wouldn't be able to knock down the core, and you'd end up having the EPSR (enemy prime stalemate redundancy) as I call it. The game would be a 10 minute struggle for control of the EP. IIRC, in PUGS we would sometimes just play til one team or the other capped the EP and then just start a new game.

                          The orb and hoverboard helped counter this, but IMHO, they've also helped end games more quickly if people play as a TEAM and use the mini-map to gauge the flow of play. And if a game does devolve to a ping-pong stalemate, IMHO it's more fun if it's a back and forth across the whole map, or some nodes in the middle, than a struggle for control of the only the prime node as we had in 2k4.

                          The countdown nodes helped with this, too.

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Originally posted by Taleweaver View Post
                            Torlan … defending that primary node (2) is A LOT harder …

                            etc.
                            etc.
                            etc.
                            The scenario you describe is exactly why the Orb does work well for the default Torlan setup.

                            The defending team have the easiest (shortest) Orb run to their own Prime Node, and generally have more chances to recover Prime than the attacking team have to lock it down and finish. Then, once reclaimed, very commonly the defending Orb carrier's job is to hold at Prime, keeping it locked while teammates attack the Secondary Nodes.



                            In the beginning, I too thought Epic had erred by designing for fewer nodes, rather than following the ONS community's lead of multiplying the node count two and three times over.

                            But in time I learned that this approach wasn't wrong, it was just different. Whereas the evolved ONS way expanded on space, Warfare and Orbs designed for time — that is, by introducing a mechanic that defines windows of opportunity, within which momentous events (a cap / a defended cap) occur that allow teams to advance and retreat, and the game to ebb and flow.

                            While I do think big expansive maps are great, the addition of a temporal mechanic was a great move too, as it offers a fix to a certain class of problems that, in ONS, could only be solved by scaling the maps up to somewhere between large and gigantic.

                            Comment


                              #29
                              Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
                              The scenario you describe is exactly why the Orb does work well for the default Torlan setup.

                              The defending team have the easiest (shortest) Orb run to their own Prime Node, and generally have more chances to recover Prime than the attacking team have to lock it down and finish. Then, once reclaimed, very commonly the defending Orb carrier's job is to hold at Prime, keeping it locked while teammates attack the Secondary Nodes.
                              This is true. I may dislike the orb, but it's not like I cannot see it was designed for this purpose. However, while it fixed this problem (and for a part the infantry being way too weak), it introduced equally important other problems:

                              -it makes the game hinge way too much on the orb carrier. If one team uses it correctly and the other team has an orb carrier who like to go pick flowers in the corner of the map, the game is determined by that one dolt.
                              -warfare is just way too swingy. On maps with a single node, it was ridiculous. (announcer voice) "Their core is vulnerable. No, wait...YOUR core is vulnerable". Perhaps if the position of all the orbs were constantly visible on the map this would partially solve this, but as it stands I really don't know why I would ever want to drive a tank in warfare: there's just no way to predict if your destination will still be vulnerable by the time you get there. (I actually had me cursing that even A FREAKING MANTA was too slow for the pace of this game)
                              -it adds extra rules that increase the overall complexity of the gametype.

                              The latter one is kind of the same complaint as I wrote out as a case against adrenaline. It's not as big of an issue, but not as small as it may sound either. Onslaught was a simple "connect the dots" with vehicles. That orb is just there "because things are broken if it isn't there".

                              Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
                              In the beginning, I too thought Epic had erred by designing for fewer nodes, rather than following the ONS community's lead of multiplying the node count two and three times over.

                              But in time I learned that this approach wasn't wrong, it was just different. Whereas the evolved ONS way expanded on space, Warfare and Orbs designed for time — that is, by introducing a mechanic that defines windows of opportunity, within which momentous events (a cap / a defended cap) occur that allow teams to advance and retreat, and the game to ebb and flow.

                              While I do think big expansive maps are great, the addition of a temporal mechanic was a great move too, as it offers a fix to a certain class of problems that, in ONS, could only be solved by scaling the maps up to somewhere between large and gigantic.
                              Interesting. I think the main reason ONS maps absolutely needed large distances between them was because the nodes had so much health. And this was a good thing, because if distance or node health was less, then vehicles would either be overpowered or not haven been able to properly move.
                              On warfare, I cannot make these claims (I haven't played the game enough for it). So what are you saying...that in warfare, you really needed to establish an attack and a defense on vulnerable nodes (either yours or the enemies) before going out?

                              What I can say is that in onslaught, defense of a node was...sort of underrated. Perhaps even useless. You stayed at a vulnerable node if you expected you couldn't make it to the adjacent node(s) and destroy those before the enemy would destroy your node. And that's what is icking me about that whole orb-thing: I cannot make this estimate. I feel as if, as soon as I hop into any vehicle and head out to another node, an orb carrier will pop up from nowhere and instantly cap my node. And that's the feeling I really hate. That "God damnit, I just left that node. It was in full health. It was fine! There were NO ENEMIES ANYWHERE!!!"-sort of feeling as I try to put my vehicle in reverse and (in the process) find out that forward and backward in a vehicle depends on which way you're looking.
                              My UT threads (latest: my take on defensive items, poll on the melee weapon's alt fire and My take on the storyline)

                              Comment


                                #30
                                orb carrier will pop up from nowhere
                                I understand that frustration. As you keep playing, however, very soon you will gain a sense of when to expect the Orb, and when not to expect it. That sense is based on a few bits of knowledge you continuously acquire throughout the game:
                                • where/when you last saw the Enemy Orb
                                • the status of the HUD indicator that shows whether the Orb is reset, being run, or downed
                                • where you know the Enemy's current Orb spawner to be, based on the Node control
                                • from which direction the Enemy Orb would be most likely to approach your position
                                • which vehicles are most likely to be taxiing the Enemy Orb
                                • in the last moments, the Enemy Orb's exact location on the mini-map once it's close to your Node


                                So, when deciding whether to leave or to defend a vulnerable Node, first see if you can deduce the most likely location of the Enemy Orb. If you know it's a long ways out, it might be safe to take off.

                                Sometimes there's not much knowledge available, and the wisest decision is to simply wait for the Enemy Orb to attack. Because you've prepared for that case, there's a good chance you'll kill the Orb carrier, and once he's down, you've created a window of opportunity — likely a good 15-30 seconds before the Enemy team will be able to make effective use of their Orb again.

                                With the window open, it's usually an excellent time for your Orb and a taxi to mount a counterattack.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X