Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Orbs in new ONS/WAR

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

    Orbs in new ONS/WAR

    I was just curious. If (or when) a new Onslaught/Warfare gametype is made for UT4, do you think orbs should be included by default? I would think there could be servers with and without them. I personally didn't really like Onslaught that much. No hoverboard and lack of orbs made the game too slow for me. Both of these features made Warfare my favourite gametype in UT3.

    Just want to hear your thoughts.
    Last edited by slik_sh00ter; 07-08-2015, 01:42 AM.

    #2
    The Orbs were an attempt to solve a big problem with Onslaught, that it was nearly impossible to shift momentum when a team began to lose. ONS games typically degraded in to a 30 minute slog where one team knew it was going to lose, could do nothing about it and just had to play D until they lost. Orbs were an attempt to fix that. When we do ONS in the future (my best guess would be sometime late 2016 but that's just a GUESS so no holding me to it) I think we will explore other ways of fixing this issue. Orbs just had too many other downsides.

    Comment


      #3
      Prior to UT4 my only experience of multiplayer UT was playing warfare in UT3. Nowadays I spend all my UT time playing duel but back then I don't think I was any good at getting frags at all, and I spent most of my time skating back and forth trying to capture points with orbs, and healing/shooting at nodes, and very little time in vehicles themselves or trying to kill people. I think the orbs added a nice way to really contribute to a victory without having to be a strong aimer, and I hope that similar mechanics are explored whenever warfare is being considered again.
      I see warfare as a gamemode that will really appeal to a lot of people who may not have played arena fps before and might find traditional game modes a bit daunting at first, and allowing people to have 'supporting' roles will be a great asset for warfare.
      http://www.twitch.tv/zoh23

      Comment


        #4
        I hope the orb isn't scrapped or altered to address perceived problems.

        The only real problems I see with the orb occur when "wrong players" take it, effectively removing one team's orb from play for [10~60 seconds + reset time + respawn time] and giving the other team an advantage to capitalize upon. There's of course the obvious case of the new player grabbing the orb and not knowing what to do with it. However, I would expand the definition of "wrong player" to include players who do understand WAR but just don't generally make good orb running decisions, which is actually very quantifiable if one bothers to even loosely keep track of certain metrics (e.g., success/failure for specific routes and preparations, successful orb caps by player, average time to cap, average "dead orb time", cost of mistakes and failures).

        Even so, we can't realistically prescribe good orb running logic. In my experience, a player who wants to contribute more to wins with better orb running will very slowly learn on their own and needs little guidance. On the other hand, many other players refuse to make positive changes and limit recklessness in their orb running based on experimentation or feedback, however polite or direct, and they will repeat past errors indefinitely. As I see it, the only real solution is to carefully tune the team balancing algorithms so that these players are as evenly distributed as possible on both teams.

        As far as I'm concerned, all potential gameplay challenges involving the orb can be worked around or countered with a modicum of applied problem-solving. That is to say, I don't believe orb-centric gameplay in WAR/ONS causes gameplay problems itself, but rather the orb makes other issues more obvious.
        WAR Gameplay with Commentary ...because you can't make a tutorial for strategy. (active again as of Feb. 2016)

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ctr2yellowbird View Post
          I hope the orb isn't scrapped or altered to address perceived problems.

          The only real problems I see with the orb occur when "wrong players" take it, effectively removing one team's orb from play for [10~60 seconds + reset time + respawn time] and giving the other team an advantage to capitalize upon. There's of course the obvious case of the new player grabbing the orb and not knowing what to do with it. However, I would expand the definition of "wrong player" to include players who do understand WAR but just don't generally make good orb running decisions, which is actually very quantifiable if one bothers to even loosely keep track of certain metrics (e.g., success/failure for specific routes and preparations, successful orb caps by player, average time to cap, average "dead orb time", cost of mistakes and failures).

          Even so, we can't realistically prescribe good orb running logic. In my experience, a player who wants to contribute more to wins with better orb running will very slowly learn on their own and needs little guidance. On the other hand, many other players refuse to make positive changes and limit recklessness in their orb running based on experimentation or feedback, however polite or direct, and they will repeat past errors indefinitely. As I see it, the only real solution is to carefully tune the team balancing algorithms so that these players are as evenly distributed as possible on both teams.

          As far as I'm concerned, all potential gameplay challenges involving the orb can be worked around or countered with a modicum of applied problem-solving. That is to say, I don't believe orb-centric gameplay in WAR/ONS causes gameplay problems itself, but rather the orb makes other issues more obvious.

          You just made a really good case for not bringing the orb back.

          Regardless it's obvious someone will make an orb even if it has all of these problems.


          Of course where we need to start is identifying, "Is this a problem, and what sort of problem is it?" Joe's description of the problem of 30 minute slogs on Onslaught sounds like an experience that is primarily focused on bad maps or bad node setups, like ONS-Primeval. We shouldn't make decisions for CTF based on CTF-Thorns. So first off, what would represent a good ONS map? In my opinion, probably the only good Onslaught map in official UT2004 was ONS-Dawn.
          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


            #6
            As a active player of UT3 Warfare for several years, I just hope Epic/the community devises something that will make ONS/WAR in UT4 just as enjoyable if not more for players. That being said, I think we also have to look at the advantages the orb has brought to the game, such as it being a support role for newer players, it being a strategic token for a losing team to bring it back, and a tool to speed up a game. Imagine playing a match of WAR-Floodgate without an orb? It would be impossible for a team to score a flood I think. I don't have any experience playing ONS (UT2K4) online, so I can't comment on that.

            Anyway, whatever happens, I'll be playin.

            Comment


              #7
              Orbs also could lock down nodes from damage and heal nodes. It's a double edged sword since both teams have it and it doesn't take long for skilled teams to taxi the orb around the map in seconds. While it was beneficial for attempting to turn the tides for a losing team, the winning team could also use it to their advantage to lock down possession of the enemy primary node for example and hide in some spot where the enemy has to go down to the carrier (often on foot and under heavy vehicle fire) in order to kill it. This further empowers the winning team.

              WAR-Torlan was pretty hilarious, both teams rushing asap to taxi the orb to the enemy primary node and side node within the first 2-3 minutes. Nothing else mattered within that time except crucial orb carrying. Then the winning team could attempt to lock down the enemy primary node by keeping their orb carrier around that node. With various vehicles (Goliath, SPMA, etc) covering the carrier, it shouldn't be too hard for the winning team to take out the core asap. Similar thing occurs in WAR-Downtown, WAR-Avalanche, etc.

              The shaped-charge was pretty harsh too, takes out almost half the core HP instantly and you can't pry it off. If you were skilled enough, you could grab the Redeemer and shaped-charge, and destroy the core in almost a flash. As rare as that may be, there shouldn't be a way to kill the core in seconds solo.
              Character Sketch

              Former IGN: Omega Lord

              "Well fans here we are for another edition of the bloodiest sport in the Galaxy. A Tournament where the winners become gods and the losers pay the ultimate price!" - UT Announcer

              Comment


                #8
                Joe I had 2ea Championship teams T5K for ONS/WAR and many of my guys and community want ONS/WAR
                Some have move to Toxikk that now have Vehicles.
                I am diehard UT and will be Admin of UT4 gaming ladder on Fraggednation.com

                So I would like some kind of HOPE or verifications on Onslaught
                UT99/U2/2003/2004/UT3 Unreal Life Doz Digital Studio UT MAP MUSIC https://soundcloud.com/dozier-mills/

                Comment


                  #9
                  I'm a former Warfare UT3 clanplayer for two different teams mi5 and Armageddon and made it to top of the Clanbase ladder in both teams.

                  I played mostly as the orb runner and spent very little time on fragging (often tried to just avoid it as much as possible in favor for simply capping or taking out nodes or whatever) since I loved the added mindgame it brought, I always thought ahead and tried to read enemy's move based on what's going on the minimap, what kind of vehicles are incoming and what's happening around the node etc. I've never been a really good fragger and could never become a top dueller (why I never play that for starters) no matter how much time I'd spend into it (learning all those metagames on how to react in certain situations and how to move around the maps which doesn't interest me that much) but I was a good warfare player because I knew exactly what to do in what situation, it was like as if my brain was spinning on 120% capacity of my normal brain activity and I used to joke that if I could get my brain to be working similarly in real life I'd be a genious. :P

                  I liked Warfare a lot more than Onslaught especially for the thing Joe said that ONS got too stacked too often and too slow. It resulted in horrible slow deaths when you were on the losing team, in UT3 at least it was over quick if the teams were stacked but in ut2k4 you were basically knowing beforehand you will die for a long time and it was horrible to play with some guys not even trying to do their best because of that and yea it was no fun to drag it out.

                  However in UT3 I think the orb is possibly a bit TOO powerful tool, especially when you can lock down nodes. I'm all for the capping part but I'm very unsure about the locking down node with orb ability. Why? Because it makes for REALLY HARD comebacks when the enemy has capped your prime node and locks it down with orb. If that ability wasn't there we would see much more comebacks and I think this would be good. So if anything I really do fancy the orb but I'd only make it so you can cap nodes with it but not lock down nodes, it's just too powerful that way and the gamemode resembles TOO much around the orb because of that. Especially the thing that often is forgotten about is when the nodes where damaged it would be impossible for the other team guys to spawn at that node for at least 5 secs after it's taken damage so when the orb locked down the node, new guys would just always spawn there. Now if the node starts taking damage and the guys will have to travel from their prime node to enemy prime after attacking core and dying, that's also another major factor to make comeback easier if the lockdown ability wasn't there.

                  But it wasn't obviously only the orb but more importantly also the grapple + hoverboard which made me fall in love with UT3's Warfare over ut2k4's Onslaught. I really cannot imagine going back to a non-grapple mechanic again, I just can't. The game is ruined if it won't be in for me. xD Riding those fast vehicles, jumping and letting go in the air to make nice long jumps etc. It was so fast-paced, so insane, so intense and it promoted teamplay much more than in ut2k4.

                  EDIT: Also the thing which were already brought up here would need to be adressed, is the damage that charge + deemer does on core. I do think it's fine that it does additional instant damage but it was a bit too huge of a damage in UT3. I often put charge + deemer on cores in UT3 especially on Downtown and I think it was too much instant damage. I'd rather have like 20 + 20 or something like that so it is worth using it on the core if you are able to do so but not that it's really gameover for the team almost instantly if not killing the guy fast after that. :P

                  All in all I see vehicles and this kind of gamemode to need to be in the game, especially since it's much more forgiving for newcomers since they can do various support roles or just learn to play UT while still finding fun stuff to do despite being very low skilled. I have no doubt it's a lot of work to be done especially for the vehicles physics n all that but I'm sure when it comes to maps, I'm thinking you would get a great help from the community.

                  I've also talked with many former Warfare clanplayers and there's a common consensus out there that the orb was a great change to gameplay but it's also a bit too powerful the way it was implemented. So for UT4 I hope whatever it gets, orb or something, allows for faster way of capturing a node but the gamemode shouldn't totally resolve around that mechanic and my personal opinion is that the lockdown mechanic is the reason for overpowering it, take it away and you will have much more back-n-forth games which becomes therefore more interesting and it becomes more like watching a football game with back n forth waves of attacks on cores. Taking out a core should be challenging but making a comeback fairly easy, this allows for more dynamic game.
                  Last edited by RPGWiZ4RD; 07-08-2015, 05:44 PM.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by RPGWiZ4RD View Post
                    I'm a former Warfare UT3 clanplayer for two different teams mi5 and Armageddon and made it to top of the Clanbase ladder in both teams.

                    I played mostly as the orb runner since I loved the added mindgame it brought, I always thought ahead and tried to read enemy's move based on what's going on the minimap, what kind of vehicles are incoming and what's happening around the node etc. I've never been a really good fragger and could never become a top dueller no matter how much time I'd spend into it but I was a good warfare player because I knew exactly what to do in what situation, it was like as if my brain was spinning on 120% capacity of my normal brain activity and I used to joke that if I could get my brain to be working similarly in real life I'd be a genious. :P

                    I liked Warfare a lot more than Onslaught especially for the thing Joe said that ONS got too stacked too often and too slow. It resulted in horrible slow deaths when you were on the losing team, in UT3 at least it was over quick if the teams were stacked but in ut2k4 you were basically knowing beforehand you will die for a long time and it was horrible to play with some guys not even trying to do their best because of that and yea it was no fun to drag it out.

                    However in UT3 I think the orb is possibly a bit TOO powerful tool, especially when you can lock down nodes. I'm all for the capping part but I'm very unsure about the locking down node with orb ability. Why? Because it makes for REALLY HARD comebacks when the enemy has capped your prime node and locks it down with orb. If that ability wasn't there we would see much more comebacks and I think this would be good. So if anything I really do fancy the orb but I'd only make it so you can cap nodes with it but not lock down nodes, it's just too powerful that way and the gamemode resembles TOO much around the orb because of that.

                    But it wasn't obviously only the orb but more importantly also the grapple + hoverboard which made me fall in love with UT3's Warfare over ut2k4's Onslaught. I really cannot imagine going back to a non-grapple mechanic again, I just can't. The game is ruined if it won't be in for me. xD
                    Took the words right out of my mouth. Exactly my thoughts.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I think the Orb (or a mechanic similar to it) serves a good purpose in ONS/WAR. It creates a further focus of conflict in the gametype and a target/threat to look out for. Without it, the gametype is too slow and makes for difficult if not impossible come-backs because of the linear nature of the "connect-the-dots" objective. But I feel UT3's iteration was a bit of an over-correction to the problem. Specifically, I don't think the Orb should've had the ability to "cap" a fully constructed node. This makes the gametype too fast - especially on maps with large distances between each node. Although based on the same concept, all things considered, Warfare and Onslaught are two different gametypes. Warfare shines brighter as a relatively smaller-scale (smaller maps, less nodes) gametype and Onslaught shines as a large-scale (much bigger maps, potentially dozens of nodes) gametype.

                      The balancing of the Orb needs to take into consideration everything ranging from node-count to map size and layout. Certain standards are going to have to be set before this can even happen. Even the core mechanics of the gametype need to be considered - Will Epic even keep the connect-the-dots objective and unlinked nodes? (There are, of course, a number of different ways to design a control-point based gametype). I remember during the custom map Warfare parties way back when, the Orb was noticeably less powerful on the larger maps with many nodes; i.e., more Onslaught-like maps. So the question is, should Epic continue the gametype starting from where Warfare left off or should they start from Onslaught and develop "Onslaught 3.0"? My vote goes for the former; but I think the gametype should scale better for the large-scale maps and high player counts than it did in UT3.

                      Then there's the vehicles and how they'll be designed and balanced and how they'll come into play. It's a lot to think about but the gametype deserves the attention.
                      Last edited by «MechikTåj»; 07-08-2015, 05:10 PM.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I've given a lot of thoughts on the orb and all subjects related to ONS (as well as a suggested redesign), on pages 4/5 here (which is actually unfinished):
                        https://forums.unrealtournament.com/...ovements/page4

                        In short, the single biggest problem with ONS was the choke point nodes (attached to a base). It made it nearly impossible to comeback, dooming the losing team to playing defense the remainder of the map and knowing that there was little they could actually do about it. I remember a 12x12 pub game on Dria where 9 (!) players left the losing team within 5 seconds of their prime node dropping, making it 12x3. In lesser extents, this happened regularly (if not the status quo), and it's really telling that there could be greater player turnover on a server when the prime node dropped vs. when the core was destroyed (the game ended).

                        This was the root cause that drove numerous other problems/solutions that transpired (and drove players away). For example, it promoted unsportsmanlike gameplay for the winning team, such as base/spawn camping and otherwise sitting back and "milking it", because of the large advantage that was hard to mess up. It made the primary objective of ONS to rush your enemy's prime node as fast as possible, because whoever got it down first won 99%+ of the time; in competitive play, it could make the game really short, as the losing team may basically give up once they lost their prime (it was another layer of demoralizing in what can already be a demoralizing game), and in pub play it would just drag the game out . . . and since maps went by time, you could end up playing the same map for ~2 hours.

                        This is a big part of why ONS-Dawn was widely regarded as the best map - it had two nodes connected to the base. It was hard to rush a single side because the node connectivity could be broken in the middle, i.e. there was a way to "backdoor" your opponents node connection, thereby cutting them off. It added a layer of strategic gameplay that single-point choke nodes lacked, helped prevent spawn camping, mitigated the enemy prime-node rush scenario, and over time proved to produce the best quality games. ONS-Dawn could be played in 6v6 competitive or Cains 32 player, and the node layout played a big part in that. ONS-Dawn was the only stock map like this, and I really felt should have been the conceptual launchpad for WAR in UT3.

                        The choke-node problem also (partly) caused the large server ONS communities to push for larger maps, which in turn caused a growing demand for something like the hoverboard, and in general more vehicles to get around. Although larger map size and additional vehicles helped mask the problem of choke point nodes, the effectiveness of being on foot diminished greatly and the approach to the game type really starts to change (I think one of the main debate points here is really how the next iteration of ONS/WAR should play in regard to foot effectiveness and expected vehicle longevity/robustness).

                        ---------------------

                        The orb was intended to help remedy this situation, but I feel it didn't have the desired effect, and pushed maps toward simplistic/gimmicky node design. Instead of expanding on the concepts that help made ONS-Dawn the most popular map, the design went a different direction and introduced an orb for each team that allowed them to instantly take/defend a node, as well as other node mechanics. But as people have pointed out in this thread alone, the orb also introduces it's own problems.

                        For me, it just creates a pseudo effect of increased pace, but it's just an illusion of a faster "tug-n-pull" and not the increase in tactical depth that could be achieved - in fact, I'd imagine that it may even reduce the tactical depth because of how easy/quickly a node can be swapped, making it feel less important/impactful to take/defend a node. Giving both teams an orb with that much power really changes the entire focus of the game type, giving it a vCTF vibe (orb runners, etc.) that it never had before.

                        Ultimately, I feel the mechanics of the orb require minimal/linear type node connectivity/design to really perform best, but this works directly against the direction I feel the node interconnectivity should go in. I feel it's also partly the reason the other node types were introduced, as they help make up for the inherent lack of strategy in a "back-n-forth" (orb-for-an-orb) game play approach, or maybe I should phrase this as the "orb standoff".

                        But don't get this wrong, the orb did improve certain aspects of the ONS experience, so I'm not surprised it's beloved by many, especially those who enjoy the vCTF style of game play. I'm not anti-orb, it's the fact that the orb didn't actually solve the problems with ONS (which was sooo close to being amazing), and in the process changed the tactical side so much that it wasn't really ONS anymore. I would of been fine with it not being ONS (and even prefer it) if the problems got weeded out, but instead the orb was just a Band-Aid that didn't fully resolve some of the gameplay issues, and instead of taking ONS to the next level, changed the way the game type was played.

                        Reading through the thread, it appears most orb advocates acknowledge that the orb presented it's own problems. But there's one I'm going to keep coming back to again and again . . .

                        ----------------------------------

                        That is to say, I don't believe orb-centric gameplay in WAR/ONS causes gameplay problems itself, but rather the orb makes other issues more obvious.
                        Because it makes for REALLY HARD comebacks when the enemy has capped your prime node and locks it down with orb
                        While it was beneficial for attempting to turn the tides for a losing team, the winning team could also use it to their advantage to lock down possession of the enemy primary node for example and hide in some spot where the enemy has to go down to the carrier (often on foot and under heavy vehicle fire) in order to kill it. This further empowers the winning team.
                        Gee, I can think of an issue the orb is kind of making obvious with these examples - everyone say it with me:

                        CHOKE POINT NODES

                        The is an excellent example of how while the orb may of improved some aspects of play, it didn't actually address the critical issue of choke point nodes, and thus the issue exposed itself again. Of course, attached to every choke point node is the base/core. Having a singular, linear path connected from your base to a single primary node causes a whole bunch of problems, and doesn't give back much in return. For example:

                        In ONS the entire game revolved around downing your enemies primary node first - that was the exciting part, the tense moments of defending your primary (or attacking theirs) and seeing who gives first. Finishing off the core/base was more of a formality, especially after solid control was established at the enemy primary. But it could also be tedious due to everyone spawning at the core - they could do enough to kill you, but they had little chance of making it to their primary and securing it. The actual process of killing the core was less exciting then the battle over prime nodes.

                        The base/core is where most of the spawn camping took place, and any path leading to the prime node. Spawning close to the core allows the losing team just enough ability to prolong their inevitable death. It becomes the perfect place to spam tank shells, do drive-bys with mantas, or just spot up with sniper/LG. The losing team only has one path, one objective, they must go through, which forces them into what is usually "the path of death".

                        This whole situation arises because of the core. It creates limitations on possible design choices - connecting 1 node to the base presents us with the choke point node problem that WAR/ONS have, but connecting too many makes defending increasing difficult and futile. Maps like ONS-Dawn did the best within the design limitations by having 2 nodes connected to base, but how many node configurations does that really leave to be created? Furthermore, there were other maps created that had 2 connecting nodes, but they still weren't as successful as ONS-Dawn - so I'm not sure making every map have 2 connecting nodes is the solution.

                        What is the solution? Get rid of the Core.

                        From here I could go on into my redesign, but I'll just point you to the link at the top again (should probably clean up my posts and make it a new thread).

                        If there's anything in this game that I'm going beat the drum on, it's going to be the problem of the choke point nodes, and how to morph the game type to allow deeper tactical gameplay. If the orb ends up being part of the solution, that's fine by me, but it shouldn't be "the" solution.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by 8thGradeDropout View Post
                          The orb was intended to help remedy this situation, but I feel it didn't have the desired effect, and pushed maps toward simplistic/gimmicky node design. Instead of expanding on the concepts that help made ONS-Dawn the most popular map, the design went a different direction and introduced an orb for each team that allowed them to instantly take/defend a node, as well as other node mechanics. But as people have pointed out in this thread alone, the orb also introduces it's own problems.

                          I think this is pretty true. I actually like the gimmick nodes, and it appeals to me, but I'm not convinced that it's good for the game. Huge numbers of people just found learning the new behaviors of nodes, which could vary between maps, too complicated. Personally, I loved it, but not everyone is going to.
                          I'm also not convinced it's bad for the game -- But I think if it's incorporated, there needs to be a much better effort in communicating with players the effects of these one-off nodes.


                          Originally posted by 8thGradeDropout View Post
                          The base/core is where most of the spawn camping took place, and any path leading to the prime node. Spawning close to the core allows the losing team just enough ability to prolong their inevitable death. It becomes the perfect place to spam tank shells, do drive-bys with mantas, or just spot up with sniper/LG. The losing team only has one path, one objective, they must go through, which forces them into what is usually "the path of death".

                          This whole situation arises because of the core. It creates limitations on possible design choices - connecting 1 node to the base presents us with the choke point node problem that WAR/ONS have, but connecting too many makes defending increasing difficult and futile. Maps like ONS-Dawn did the best within the design limitations by having 2 nodes connected to base, but how many node configurations does that really leave to be created? Furthermore, there were other maps created that had 2 connecting nodes, but they still weren't as successful as ONS-Dawn - so I'm not sure making every map have 2 connecting nodes is the solution.

                          What is the solution? Get rid of the Core.
                          I'm not convinced on this point, but I think it's fair to distinguish between

                          (a) "The Core" - Meaning the centralized default spawn location for one team
                          (b) "The Core" - Meaning the physical object that exists in one location on the map
                          (c) "The Core" - Meaning the concept of the team having a singular numerical value which determines which team wins or loses

                          I would be comfortable eliminating A & B, but not C.
                          In ONS there is the concept of "Spur Nodes" which basically are unattackable nodes from which defenders can mount a defense. That is essentially elimination of (a).
                          Eliminating the (b) reliance on the core as a singular object in the game world that can be attacked is an idea that I wanted to experiment with for a long time. It's actually probably not that difficult to implement, but teaching people about it would be hard.


                          While these sort of breakdowns are all well and good, I personally feel like there are a couple of lessons to be learned from both UT2004 and UT3 and other games as well.

                          1. (UT2004) Single prime node maps are usually bad.
                          2. (UT3) The general gaming public wants vehicle modes that are expansive, not vehicle modes that focus action in on one city block (i.e. People want big maps).
                          3. (CS & DOTA/LOL) Map variety is overrated, and establishing a single good map that can be played in a lot of different ways is way more important than the novelty of having 500 mediocre maps.

                          #3 especially hurts me, because I love new things and having new maps that explore new ideas and mechanics is way more appealing to me than mastering one level.
                          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


                            #14
                            Heya slik

                            You will probably enjoy a quick (ha!) read through this, from about a year ago:

                            https://forums.unrealtournament.com/...d-Improvements

                            That thread had tons of well-reasoned, high-quality discussion on this topic.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by «MechikTåj» View Post
                              Warfare shines brighter as a relatively smaller-scale (smaller maps, less nodes) gametype and Onslaught shines as a large-scale (much bigger maps, potentially dozens of nodes) gametype.

                              ...

                              I remember during the custom map Warfare parties way back when, the Orb was noticeably less powerful on the larger maps with many nodes; i.e., more Onslaught-like maps.
                              This, exactly.

                              On those biggish ONS/"T32-style" Warfare maps, the Orb was not very helpful, but then also neither was it very harmful, just less consequential in general. In fact, on some of those large, multi-Prime maps, even with the Orbs in play, in terms of general gameplay character, you were more than halfway closer to straight old 32p ONS than to standard UT3 WAR.

                              Meanwhile, the Orb did very well at making the smallish maps, with their linear node-graphs, so, so much more viable than they were in ONS. At least with respect to those maps in particular, adding an Orb was only a good thing.



                              Relevant year-old self-quote:

                              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.
                              This is such an important insight (IMVHO ).

                              Whatever the ONS/WAR successor ultimately becomes, we would all be very wise to have recognized the value of those "space+time" aspects of ONS/WAR, and seek to preserve them — even if in some non-Orb alternative form — as an option available to level designers.

                              Both the Orbful and Orbless designs have their place, and I'd be glad to see them both leveraged in the new UT someday, each to its own advantage.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X