Impulse (Bombing Run remake; Screenshots added: 10/20/2015)

[toddisit]

I had an idea from many months ago where instead of competing for a neutral bomb on a map, each team would be given their own bomb to deliver to the enemy's base or some arbitrary "core" of the opposing team base. Once the bomb is delivered to the proper area, the charge is set off and the base explodes. Reasons I feel it is a good idea. Follows more along the lines of CTF, only the objective is not to grab the enemy flag but the reverse of delivering a bomb from your own base to the opposing side. If the bomb is dropped and the enemy recovers it, the bomb is returned to the friendly base. There can be a score limit to this game like in CTF, or a time limit, max number of rounds. Not sure if vehicles would be in the mix, could be a non vehicle and vehicle mode.

Did not particularly care for Bombing Run in UT04 for various reasons, lacked flow or pace. The BR game itself lacked the excitement of CTF which was always the best and mode that required team work, yet was quicker paced and more synchronized. I realize that the newer map tools allow players to see what is going on very far away now.

Thought I would throw this out there. It would be something fresh and not a recycled mode that was not that popular to start. Anything that mirrors CTF and is yet different may be more popular.

[Raidakk]

I really like this game type, but it failed in UT2004 due to the bad map design. People made it so the enemies re-spawn right next to the goals. Where is the logic in that? By the time you reach the enemies base half of your team would be dead and the enemy has fresh health again. I remember playing one bombing run game that lasted over 2 hours and no one could score because players just kept on re-spawning near the goals... I hope you fix this issue.

[UffDa]

encouraged to see some work on BR.. I'll try to take a look soon.

[GooZ]

I really like this game type, but it failed in UT2004 due to the bad map design. People made it so the enemies re-spawn right next to the goals. Where is the logic in that? By the time you reach the enemies base half of your team would be dead and the enemy has fresh health again. I remember playing one bombing run game that lasted over 2 hours and no one could score because players just kept on re-spawning near the goals... I hope you fix this issue.

That´s not an issue. A good pass can easily go from the ballspawn to the enemy goal on most maps (besides really big maps, like Serenity and Colossus). If you dont spawn with any weapons, the only thing you can do is to telefrag, or, if the pass is still incoming, intercept. A BR game going into overtime with 0-0 is something I have never seen. I can only explain a 2h BR game with both teams focusing on fragging only, but that´s deathmatch and not Bombing Run . Also, "right next to the goal" is relative here, on Anubis e.g. the spawns are almost equally as far from the ballspawn, as to the goal, thus making it impossible to "goalcamp". At some point the goal will be completly defenseless and scoring will happen with a decent pass.

Oh and, cool that someone finally made a prototype. Really looking forward to this

[Raidakk]

That´s not an issue. A good pass can easily go from the ballspawn to the enemy goal on most maps (besides really big maps, like Serenity and Colossus). If you dont spawn with any weapons, the only thing you can do is to telefrag, or, if the pass is still incoming, intercept. A BR game going into overtime with 0-0 is something I have never seen. I can only explain a 2h BR game with both teams focusing on fragging only, but that´s deathmatch and not Bombing Run . Also, "right next to the goal" is relative here, on Anubis e.g. the spawns are almost equally as far from the ballspawn, as to the goal, thus making it impossible to "goalcamp". At some point the goal will be completly defenseless and scoring will happen with a decent pass.

Oh and, cool that someone finally made a prototype. Really looking forward to this

It depends on what map you are playing. Remember that first map from the BR ladder? I seriously played for over two hours against bots until I exited the game raging.

[Esula]

I think you should explore BR specific map design, make one good solid BR map and if its a success more can be created. There could be many good ideas that can arise and take this game mode further competitively rather than using simple CTF maps. Sorry just annoyed of everyone playing it safe and not taking the risks. For example if you have the ball maybe an area on the map has a large gap that could be rewarding to pass to a team mate on the other side, strategy, communication and timing.

[chewyfood]

The developers need to look at UT2003, not UT2004, as the model for Bombing Run.

I remember when UT2003 came out, BR was the s***. There were some people playing TDM, DM, DOM and CTF, but at that time, everyone was playing BR, non-stop. All the servers were loaded. Then when UT2004 came out and Epic decided to mess around with the setup of the BR gametype settings, people stopped playing BR.

Seeing as how I played BR non-stop back in college, I figured I would add my 2 cents.

• Translocator (#1) - Interestingly, the changes that were made to the translocator from UT99 to UT2003 were a boon to Bombing Run. It was really odd how that worked. But, those longgggg arc'ing, limited shot translocator made the BR game mode quite fun. I love what Epic has done to the translocator for UT4 (it works well, not asking for a change), but I think creating a BR-only translocator for the purposes of resurrecting this game mode is something to think about.
• Translocator (#2) - But, the changes that were made to the translocator from UT2003 to UT2004 killed BR. Namely, the reload rate was reduced, the arc'ing was reduced (which hurt BR since some of the great maps were huge and open) and when you picked up the ball (and subsequently dropped or shot it) your translocator ammo count went to 0. People who take the ball are generally the most active and more useful to the team. By nixing their translocator it took them away from the action immediately, until they had enough translocator shots to get back in (usually requiring more than 2003 since the arc'ing was shorter in 2004), which by that point, the whole dynamic of the bombing run may have changed. In UT2003 your shot count would stay the same, and reload even while you had the ball.
• Translocator (#3) - translocator was disabled by default in BR2004. You had to turn it on. Too many servers without translocator made it hard to find servers WITH it.
• Movement - UT2003 was a move towards trying to get less experienced players involved in UT. Player and gun movements were slowed down. While this angered diehards (like myself, causing me to go back to UT99 quite a bit), and destroyed CTF in the process, it worked extremely well in BR's favor. You had so many inexperienced players playing BR and making the servers fun. UT2004 made changes to speed up player and gun movements, which, while helping to resurrect CTF and create a great ONS community, had the unintended side effect of killing BR.
• Instagib - Instagib is a touchy subject for some people. Some love it, some hate it. As a diehard, I personally hated it, especially in UT99, and in any non-BR mods (ONS, Assault, etc.). But in BR, it worked extremelyyyyyy well. Since the focus of the mod is a single person carrying the ball, it gave inexperienced players the chance to actually have an effect on the game. Especially in maps with choke points (like Twin Tombs, or Bifrost, or Anubis), it became a back and forth push of the ball, a test of two teams' wills.
• Low Gravity - again, like Instagib, it was a touchy subject, but in BR, it worked extremelyyyyy well. It slowed down player movements (since they were floating), which allowed more inexperienced players (especially with instagib turned on) to have more of an effect on the game.

Just keep the 5 points mentioned above in mind when developing BR. It is hard to ask for a change from the current system of movement in UT4 development since it works very well where it is now. Just be aware of how UT2003 was successful, and just tailor the development of the mod around UT4's current dynamics.

If I was developing BR for UT4, I would add a second mode type for the translocator that is reminiscent of UT2003, turned on by default ONLY for BR. I would incorporate the low gravity option into UT4 and have it turned on by default for servers. I would make the Instagib option turned on by default for server creators. And I would try to focus on creating maps that are similar to the most successful BR maps from 2003/2004 (limited obstructions like trees, choke points towards the goal, small goal room, open area in the center for a ball fight).

BR-Anubis - 5/5, good choke points, open areas ahead of the goal room, tight room for goal, easy to navigate
BR-TwinTombs - 5/5, good choke points leading up to the goal room, tight room for goal, open area in the center of the map, easy to navigate
BR-Skyline - 5/5, huge open area in the center, with a choke point for the ball, small goal rooms with choke points in getting the ball there, ball falling off the map made resets very tactical, easy to navigate
BR-Bifrost - 5/5, huge open area in the center, choke points at the goal room. Hilly central area made for interesting fights, easy to navigate
BR-Disclosure - 5/5, closed like Slaughterhouse, but unlike slaughterhouse it was easy to navigate, there was a central open area that made for huge fights and ridiculous choke points getting to the goal
BR-IceFields - 4/5, the whole map is just one big choke point...heh, easy to navigate
BR-Canyon - 3/5, not too bad, easy to navigate, just no choke points, too open.
BR-ElectricFields - 3/5, same as Canyon. Easy to navigate, just no choke points.
BR-Colossus - 3/5, same as Canyon. Easy to navigate, just no choke points.
BR-Serenity - 2/5, similar to Canyon, but just not as easy to navigate and too many obstructions like trees and stuff.
BR-BridgeOfFate - 2/5, easy to navigate, and open, and had its choke points, but having the ball in the center on the bridge sucked.
BR-Slaughterhouse - 1/5, hard to navigate, too closed of a map

[n0niz]

Can we have normal BR working first and then do the changes?

Maybe you can make a youtube video of your changes

100 shield + a shieldgun for the ballrunner? i can run trough bro

And Locking pass is required, thats the clue of BR, if notnit would be öike deathball or speedball. I would only pass people, which could catch

Both changes means less teamplay

[vlad.serbanescu11]

Can we have normal BR working first and then do the changes?

Since UE4 is free and the development is open-source, you can make any version you want. This is just my vision and I've posted it for constructive feedback. I do not represent Epic Games and am not even close to being a developer for UT4. Therefore, I am not obligated in any way to copy-paste their original Bombing Run gametype.

Maybe you can make a youtube video of your changes

You could, too ! You could make a video explaining in a logical way why every idea of mine will not work. That would be constructive.

100 shield + a shieldgun for the ballrunner? i can run trough bro

I'll upload a .pak soon and we can test it together.

And Locking pass is required, thats the clue of BR, if notnit would be öike deathball or speedball. I would only pass people, which could catch

I already stated that I will work on locking passes.

I've also received and responded both positive and negative to the great feedback community member J has provided. I don't mean to be rude, but I suggest you read the discussion as well, instead of jumping head-first with a conservative attitude, trying to demolish every chance of innovation.

P.S. "Normal BR" means, by definition, a different set of maps, which I am completely against. If someone else wants to do things this way, they can do it themselves. I am firmly convinced the future of Bombing Run lies with existing CTF maps and so far I've read more comments stating we should have specific maps than I can count. You know what they all had in common? Lack of arguments and logical points of view.

[n0niz]

The Ballrunner Shieldoption would be interesting but it wouldn't be BR, maybe another name for this like shieldBR. But yes it sounds quite interesting if it requires the whole enemyteam to break the "Ballshield"

If you want to change BR then it would be small things. Drastic changes would be a new mod, which i would support too. I'm looking forward of 10000 hours ut4 with many mods ^.^
I can't test it, no pc and i'm on travel.
BTW: i converted several CTF Maps in UT2k4 to BR just changing flags to goals and people don't play it

[Hektoerr]

.

I played lots of BR and CTF maps where flags were replaced with a goal simply do not work. Just like tdm maps mirrored are not good ctf maps, theres like 1% exception. CTF is a totally different gameplay why would it work with BR? In ctf there are attackers, defenders, midfielders most of the time the players are spread out, while in BR 10 players are concentrated into a small area all the time along and they are moving together towards the ball or towards to score, more or less. Even if there are similarities, the gameplay difference is huge.

[j]

I played lots of BR and CTF maps where flags were replaced with a goal simply do not work. Just like tdm maps mirrored are not good ctf maps, theres like 1% exception. CTF is a totally different gameplay why would it work with BR? In ctf there are attackers, defenders, midfielders most of the time the players are spread out, while in BR 10 players are concentrated into a small area all the time along and they are moving together towards the ball or towards to score, more or less. Even if there are similarities, the gameplay difference is huge.

I think this is particularly true of the current UT4 CTF maps - they're all very linear and wide open and probably wouldn't work well at all for BR.

In 2k3/4 I think both TwinTombs and Grendelkeep played well for both gametypes, but that's about it. That might be partly because people tend to stay with the maps they're used to - e.g., I think BR-Disclosure had some potential for CTF, while CTF-Anfractuous might have worked for BR.

It's certainly much more difficult to construct a map that works well for both gametypes, and will be even more so if we introduce a faster translocator for BR.

Having said that, it seems to me that it's generally the best maps that work well for both gametypes, so maybe having to design for both at once could have the positive side effect of a better standard of maps?

[vlad.serbanescu11]

I think this is particularly true of the current UT4 CTF maps - they're all very linear and wide open and probably wouldn't work well at all for BR.
I'm hoping maps will get more diverse and thus we could end up with a pool of totally different maps to play CTF/BR on. I understand the worries of using CTF maps for BR, but don't you agree that CTF and BR are too similar to require different maps? DM and TDM use the same maps, with only one difference: they have 3 types of PlayerStarts: Regular, Blue, Red. What if they had only Regular starts? It would make TDM unplayable on a DM map. That's a designer concern, not a programmer concern. Couldn't it be the same with CTF and BR? (e.g. placement of flags / side entrances etc)

It's certainly much more difficult to construct a map that works well for both gametypes, and will be even more so if we introduce a faster translocator for BR.
Agreed, but don't you think, overall, it could make the lives of designers easier? I may be wrong, but as far as I noticed, in UT2004, people designed far far more CTF maps than BR. From their point of view, why design a map for a gametype with a certain popularity, if I can design a map for a gametype with 10 times that popularity? Maybe using the same maps for CTF and BR will force people to think: I should design a map that plays best on both CTF and BR. And then BINGO! We have good maps for everyone.

Having said that, it seems to me that it's generally the best maps that work well for both gametypes, so maybe having to design for both at once could have the positive side effect of a better standard of maps?
As described above, I, for one, completely agree.

Maybe some of you noticed that I've been consistently updating LMS/LTS and not BR. I'm still working on BR. I just thought I should let people know that, for the time being, I can't fix the issue with the ball going through materials.

I will try to implement a lot of the things you suggested (some will be easy, some will be hard), but I think a perfectly functional ball should be priority number one.

[Zocom7]

Say, Vlad. When are you going to update this Bombing Run game mode with a PAK file in it? Does the current prototype of BR only works in UT Editor and not UT4 ingame?

[vlad.serbanescu11]

When Epic (or someone else) helps me solve the ball issue.

EDIT: You can make a .pak yourself too since the blueprints are public.