Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Orb

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

    The Orb

    The Orb really added a lot of depth and strategy to the WAR gametype.

    Much like a flag runner in CTF, teammates will protect the orb runner and they will stage assaults on enemy nodes when the Orb is moving on the minimap. The Orb helps organize the team by calling in the cavalry. Teammates will provide Taxis and Tows as well providing even more team play.

    One of the biggest concerns I've heard about the Orb is the fact it can capture an unshielded node instantly and because of that it is too overpowered. So maybe the Orb could stand to change for UT4.

    I think a good compromise would be to Nerf/change the UT3 style Orb a little bit:
    • The Orb cannot be used to capture nodes. You can only use the orb for locking nodes (if you stand near your team color node w/ Orb the node is shielded and cannot be damaged. But if you are killed and drop the orb the node becomes vulnerable).
    • Give the Orb carrier an extra powerful healing Link Gun (only while holding the Orb) for building the node and healing support vehicles. But it's not any more powerful than normal against enemies.

    #2
    The general consensus on the Orb seems to be that it just didn't work out very well as an addition to the Onslaught/Warfare game type. Someone will probably create an Onslaught/Warfare mod for UT4, but it probably won't include the Orb. Hoverboards and Countdown Timer nodes can stay, IMHO.
    UT4 CTF Maps: CTF-Whiplash | CTF-Sidewinder | CTF-Highpoint | CTF-Hardcore | CTF-Tubes-Of-Spam

    UT99 CTF Maps: CTF-DagnysBigAssMap-V2 | CTF-Dagnys-P****WhIpPeD | CTF-Dagnys-Dark-Delight-LE102 | CTF-Dagnys-Tubes-Of-Spam

    Comment


      #3
      Really, the orb its a mapper option. As such, there is no reason to remove it.

      Mappers can even very effectively nerf the orb. Spending the orb becomes risky when the orb spawners are few and far between. If you had to run the orb from home base every time, it would be much more balanced in it's current implementation, and it's most effective use strategies would be fundamentally different. If it's too bad at it's worst, than nerfing it's functionality would still help the game overall, regardless of whatever mappers decided to do. Fashioning the orb in such a way that it can't break a map under any circumstances will be beneficial either way.

      I think the best thing to do is to change the orb to neutralizing an enemy node, or fully capturing a neutral or building node. This would reduce the swing time it creates, and restore some counter play that isn't "take it back with your orb."

      This way, it would still be a fight if every node had a spawner. You'd still either have to build, or destroy a node, if not both, and it would give the opposing team some time to do anything about it.

      If spawners were only at the base nodes, it would less beneficial to spend it, and better to hold on to the orb and use it's healing/building feature, building the nodes faster, and locking them when completed.

      Or mappers could leave the orbs out completely, which I'm sure there could also be a setting to disable them from spawning, even if spawners are mapped in.
      Originally posted by Mysterial
      An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

      Comment


        #4
        The main problem that the orb was supposed to solve/help coming from 2k4 ONS was choke point nodes and/or stalemate conditions. I don't even have to play UT3 to know that it failed.

        If there is an orb for each team, the mechanic balances out. Further linear type node paths were a move in the wrong direction.

        Until the fundamental problem of node design / choke point nodes is resolved, discussion about any other aspect of a redesigned ONS/WAR/Whatever is subject to change. I'm not saying the orb should stay or go, just that it didn't solve the problem, and until a solution is found, how the orb fits in is yet to be determined. (PS - I have a mega post incoming with proposed node design change, maybe this weekend I'll get the time to finish)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by WHIPperSNAPper View Post
          The general consensus on the Orb seems to be that it just didn't work out very well as an addition to the Onslaught/Warfare game type. Someone will probably create an Onslaught/Warfare mod for UT4, but it probably won't include the Orb. Hoverboards and Countdown Timer nodes can stay, IMHO.
          This easily ranks in the top 3 of biggest nonsense written on this forum. The orb plays a huge role in Warfare and the design is well executed. In a 3 or 5 node setup the orb determines who gets hold of the center node. The orb can make the difference in saving a node when its about to get overrun by the enemy when you have a good defender able to lock the orb to the node to let extra team members spawn. It makes players want to work together. Some players dedicate them self to the pilot role to make orb carrying as efficient as possible using different and often tricky routes.

          If we get another Warfare a like mode in the next UT at one point then I hope we will see something similar to the orb. Anything that promotes teamplay gets a thumbs up from me.


          Originally posted by tarnationsauce2 View Post

          One of the biggest concerns I've heard about the Orb is the fact it can capture an unshielded node instantly and because of that it is too overpowered. So maybe the Orb could stand to change for UT4.
          I played Warfare in EU and I never heard anyone complain that the orb is overpowered. But maybe they think about it differently in the US. Personally I believe the orb is good as it is though I keep an open mind to improvement but I believe what you suggest would be a step backwards and it would also negatively affect team play. Right now there is a good balance between risk and reward. If you decide to take the orb to the center node you leave the primary node more vulnerable to enemy attacks. You risk your prime but you can gain the center node. The reward is equal to the risk. It makes players think about taking calculated risks to advance or knowing when to be defensive and shield primary node a bit longer.
          Last edited by OldSkoolFool; 10-10-2014, 06:00 AM.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by OldSkoolFool View Post
            I played Warfare in EU and I never heard anyone complain that the orb is overpowered. But maybe they think about it differently in the US. Personally I believe the orb is good as it is though I keep an open mind to improvement but I believe what you suggest would be a step backwards and it would also negatively affect team play. Right now there is a good balance between risk and reward. If you decide to take the orb to the center node you leave the primary node more vulnerable to enemy attacks. You risk your prime but you can gain the center node. The reward is equal to the risk. It makes players think about taking calculated risks to advance or knowing when to be defensive and shield primary node a bit longer.
            Oh no I think the UT3 ORB is fantastic.
            No serious UT3 WAR player would ever complain about the orb that I know of. It's mainly the 2k4 players that are scared of the ORB having too much power. I think that is unfounded but a little change could keep the orb a useful mechanic and keep everyone happy.

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by -AEnubis- View Post
              If it's too bad at it's worst, than nerfing it's functionality would still help the game overall, regardless of whatever mappers decided to do. Fashioning the orb in such a way that it can't break a map under any circumstances will be beneficial either way.
              I don't disagree but it's interesting to see you use this line of argument, which you totally rejected when it was made in favour of dodge jump. What is so different here?

              I like the orb, and I think the main problem comes on public servers where one team might have more than one player who wants to be orb runner, meaning often the players spend the whole game camping the spawn to fight for the orb. I don't see any solutions to this problem that would be appropriate for public servers (e.g. having a designated orb carrier). Perhaps the best thing would be to enhance the team play element of orb running by adding the functionality for easy passing of the orb between team mates (e.g. something like the lock-passing feature of the ball in UT2004 BR)? That would allow 2 or more players to run the orb together, and increase the possibilities for orb control and strategy.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by tarnationsauce2 View Post
                Oh no I think the UT3 ORB is fantastic.
                No serious UT3 WAR player would ever complain about the orb that I know of. It's mainly the 2k4 players that are scared of the ORB having too much power. I think that is unfounded but a little change could keep the orb a useful mechanic and keep everyone happy.
                Well the ut2k4 onslaught players just need to get with the program. In their defense they will point to player numbers but consider the following. In ut2k4 from what I remember servers that played stock maps died out after 2 years or something? They relied on custom content which were a mix of oversized fun maps and complete cluster****s imo. In UT3 we had quality competitive games for over 6 years with good players on stock maps because it was that good. We would complain when downtown got voted but everyone cheered silently cause the map was fun as **** even after all those years. If UT3 wasn't so buggy at release nor suffered from the gears of wars paint over then I believe it would have overshadowed onslaught. And I'm not even biased cause I enjoyed all UT games.

                Areas where Warfare improved over onslaught:

                - No more shooting nodes from a mile away. The map design of UT3 warfare maps forced you to get close to the enemy node and attack as a team.
                - Hoverboards cause walking to every node is depressing in a fast paced game.
                - Better weapon balance. No more sitting in a corner of the map shock tapping raptors down.
                - Orb, cause starting at floodgate and having two orb carriers on both teams being towed by vipers to the centernode and ejecting at the right moment trying to avril the enemy viper and taking the center node is what fast paced action is all about.

                Point of the story and to keep it on topic is that I think we should keep the orb or maybe something differently but with the same idea behind it. But not go backwards to cater to players who get dizzy when they have to carry the orb and hoverboard at the same time.

                In fact I hope to see more elements being added that will contribute to tactical depth. Even somewhere along the XMP route. Fast paced action game with two teams battling it using skill and tactics would be awesome.

                BTW, Lotus and especially Necrotic are excellent maps.

                Comment


                  #9
                  Another huge ORB/Hoverboard fan here.
                  I absolutely loved ONS but after playing WAR I just noticed how much better the orb makes the game. Of course it does not solve every problem in the world, but it makes for a very nice strategic and tactical addition imo. It also opens the possibility for lots of high risk, high reward scenarios that can completely turn the game. In UT2004 there were far more situations imo where one team dominated a map in a way that it was completely impossible to turn it around even if your players were 3 times better overall... This didn't happen nearly as often in UT3.

                  I am talking from the persepctive of a player on public servers btw, might be different for closed teams but I cannot really imagine why

                  Comment


                    #10
                    I was never really a fan of the orb, but the hoverboard was a nice idea (could do with some improvement though). I wouldn't mind seeing the orb in game, but you should be able to set a 'chance of no orb' in the warfare settings, instead of just having it as a mutator
                    Last edited by Obliterator2; 10-13-2014, 12:01 AM.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Originally posted by OldSkoolFool View Post
                      Well the ut2k4 onslaught players just need to get with the program. In their defense they will point to player numbers but consider the following. In ut2k4 from what I remember servers that played stock maps died out after 2 years or something?
                      Totally wrong. The pub servers slanted towards competitive players played stock maps until the end (UT3 release).

                      Originally posted by OldSkoolFool View Post
                      In UT3 we had quality competitive games for over 6 years with good players on stock maps because it was that good. We would complain when downtown got voted but everyone cheered silently cause the map was fun as **** even after all those years. If UT3 wasn't so buggy at release nor suffered from the gears of wars paint over then I believe it would have overshadowed onslaught.
                      Same exact situation in 2k4. I mostly agree with the last part of the statement.

                      Originally posted by OldSkoolFool View Post
                      No more shooting nodes from a mile away. The map design of UT3 warfare maps forced you to get close to the enemy node and attack as a team.
                      This is a matter of opinion as to whether this is good. I didn't have problems with people attacking nodes from far away, either conceptually or handling it in game.

                      Originally posted by OldSkoolFool View Post
                      Hoverboards cause walking to every node is depressing in a fast paced game.
                      I agree a better travel mechanic is needed (although, I really didn't have problems in ONS getting where I needed to go, or being in the right position at the right time on stock maps). I dislike hoverboards because I can't attack while on them (main reason), it's SSX Tricky gimmicky, and IMO it's boring/not good enough.

                      Originally posted by OldSkoolFool View Post
                      Better weapon balance. No more sitting in a corner of the map shock tapping raptors down.
                      I agree weapon balance could be better. But it wasn't because people were sitting in corners, it was because you could stand directly on a node and take out a manta/raptor before it got close to you. Some people liked this style of play as well by the way.

                      Originally posted by OldSkoolFool View Post
                      Orb, cause starting at floodgate and having two orb carriers on both teams being towed by vipers to the centernode and ejecting at the right moment trying to avril the enemy viper and taking the center node is what fast paced action is all about.
                      Kind of sounds like ONS and vCTF had a child (and not sure how I feel about it). Also, there's two of them, they just cancel out. It's just frosting on the cake. I'll say it again, I don't have anything against the orb - my issue is that it didn't actually solve the choke node problem (which I consider a limiting factor on "tactics ceiling"). For example:

                      Originally posted by Syberdoor View Post
                      I absolutely loved ONS but after playing WAR I just noticed how much better the orb makes the game. Of course it does not solve every problem in the world, but it makes for a very nice strategic and tactical addition imo. It also opens the possibility for lots of high risk, high reward scenarios that can completely turn the game. In UT2004 there were far more situations imo where one team dominated a map in a way that it was completely impossible to turn it around even if your players were 3 times better overall... This didn't happen nearly as often in UT3.
                      Yes, this was THE problem in ONS. The orb was supposed to fix it, but instead it was a Band-Aid solution. Of course, that's better than nothing, so it did improve the situation. But it doesn't actually fix the root cause problem of linear node paths, which is a huge limiting factor on tactical depth you can create in the game.

                      Originally posted by OldSkoolFool View Post
                      In fact I hope to see more elements being added that will contribute to tactical depth. Fast paced action game with two teams battling it using skill and tactics would be awesome.
                      We agree on this 100%. I'm suggesting that the orb didn't actually fix the thing it was intending to, and an actual fix has the potential to add more tactical gameplay that I think most people would welcome. And it's only after such a fix that the orb, and basically every game mechanic, can be reviewed to see how it then fits in.

                      (I'll try to just spit out my post I was talking about earlier so we can really get the conversation going (in my eyes at least)).

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by 8thGradeDropout View Post
                        (I'll try to just spit out my post I was talking about earlier so we can really get the conversation going (in my eyes at least)).
                        https://forums.unrealtournament.com/...400#post115400

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by j View Post
                          I don't disagree but it's interesting to see you use this line of argument, which you totally rejected when it was made in favour of dodge jump. What is so different here?
                          My proposal would cut the orbs function in half. Removing the extra jump, cuts the dodge jump's function in half.

                          There is no difference here, you're just not making valid comparisons.

                          Originally posted by j View Post
                          I like the orb, and I think the main problem comes on public servers where one team might have more than one player who wants to be orb runner, meaning often the players spend the whole game camping the spawn to fight for the orb. I don't see any solutions to this problem that would be appropriate for public servers (e.g. having a designated orb carrier). Perhaps the best thing would be to enhance the team play element of orb running by adding the functionality for easy passing of the orb between team mates (e.g. something like the lock-passing feature of the ball in UT2004 BR)? That would allow 2 or more players to run the orb together, and increase the possibilities for orb control and strategy.
                          A throw, or drop orb button should be an option. There is a solution to fighting over the orb. There's always a solution.

                          The simple idea is that if something is valued so highly, that it gets fought over, decrease it's value. For pub play, it will serve a two fold purpose. First it will make it less appealing, and thus players will still find value in attacking, or defending without it. Second, it will make it less detrimental to the team for a griefer to run the orb to the ends of the map in a pub. Obviously, there should be other solutions for this, like a proximity check on the orb, but it would lessen the swing, none the less.

                          Defending against the orb without the orb is usually an exercise in frustration, as the turn around is so instant. This would at least allow the defenders to neutralize an incoming attack without having to worry about immediate reinforcements, whether it be vehicle spawns, turrets, or player respawns.
                          Originally posted by Mysterial
                          An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Originally posted by tarnationsauce2 View Post
                            I think a good compromise would be to Nerf/change the UT3 style Orb a little bit:
                            • The Orb cannot be used to capture nodes. You can only use the orb for locking nodes (if you stand near your team color node w/ Orb the node is shielded and cannot be damaged. But if you are killed and drop the orb the node becomes vulnerable).
                            • Give the Orb carrier an extra powerful healing Link Gun (only while holding the Orb) for building the node and healing support vehicles. But it's not any more powerful than normal against enemies.
                            I agree that some slight tweak to the Orb mechanics is in order. As to the specifics, however, I wonder …

                            IMO the quicker Node turnover/possession-changes — as facilitated by Orbs and Orb-capping — was one of WAR's great successes. Among other things, it relieved ONS's "two-minute victory" problem considerably, and, generally speaking, it made more areas of the map and more minutes of the match more interesting more often.


                            So given that view, I think a simpler adjustment might work out at least as well — which is to simply shorten the distance within which the Orb "locks"/shields a controlled Node.

                            Doing this would make it easier to kill a "turtling" Orb-carrier, and thus harder for a defending team to halt the pace of the game, which would in turn make for more interesting and frequent TDM battles when two Orbs converge at a contested Node.

                            Those are positive consequences very much in the spirit of the improvements to ONS that WAR did make, IMO.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Here's another Idea that could make comebacks more possible:
                              Orb cannot lock or cap enemy prime. Otherwise the same as it is (your own team CAN lock or cap your own prime).

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X