Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Orbs in new ONS/WAR

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

    #16
    Originally posted by RPGWiZ4RD View Post
    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.
    This is right sometimes ...
    Downtown: cap EP, pick up new Orb 10m away, jump back to the Node to lock it down as tank/bender drives in and up, await GG. (That's a bit of a design flaw in Downtown IMO.)

    But other times it's not right ...
    Torlan: from own Core, use Orb to cap enemy-controlled Prime, then quickly taxi next Orb again from Core to Prime (before enemy can fly their Orb in from across the map). Hold and lock there to protect until teammates manage to reset West/East Nodes, and only then advance with Orb.


    Moral of the story is — sometimes, the Orb-lock feature directly helps teams to mount a comeback.

    It all depends on the design of the map.

    Comment


      #17
      To me, when factoring team balance - ie assuming you have two equally skilled teams, then whoever manages to take down the enemy prim deserves it and it shouldn't be easy to come back from it - that's the whole point, and why I prefer the ONS implementation. However, being a game of strategy, what determines which team wins or loses from here should depend on strategy, not some gimmick like a node lockdown. Node layouts are important, and what works best in that regard is when there are two primary nodes per team, not just one.

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

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
        But other times it's not right ...
        Torlan: from own Core, use Orb to cap enemy-controlled Prime, then quickly taxi next Orb again from Core to Prime (before enemy can fly their Orb in from across the map). Hold and lock there to protect until teammates manage to reset West/East Nodes, and only then advance with Orb.
        This depends, usually by the time the enemy has captured prime with an orb, the ally's orb carrier is at the other prime node/side node or elsewhere in the map. Unless your own team is very skilled at orb running, usually there would be enemies already at/near the prime to shoot down incoming taxi's and hoverboarding/on-foot orb carriers. This buys time for the enemy to taxi their own orb to the prime node and lock it down. Also note, the winning team has access to majority of the vehicles in the map and spawn points. On top of that, most of the time the Raptor and Manta are used to taxi, both of which are easy to take out. If one hit is taken while on the hoverboard and grappling, you pretty much fall over and screw up.

        Using the orb for defence and lock down of your own primary node is viable, but your team has less access to a wider range of vehicles, and also it'll become a battle of attrition while your team slowly takes out one of the side nodes. In many cases, I've seen the enemy team send a few to the core, mostly to take out any taxi vehicles there as they respawn. But your point is entirely valid in the fact it depends on the map too.

        So basically, the winning team has access to a wider range of vehicles, have many taxi vehicle choices available around the map, can use any of the nodes in the map to spawn, and can use the orb to lock down the opposing prime node in their possession. So while the orb can really help to make comebacks, it can also help to prevent it, which kind of defeats its primary purpose. With the right setup, the enemy team can prevent a comeback entirely, assuming the only vehicles and spawn point the ally team has is the main base, which should be under attack. All of this node locking however, doesn't apply to maps with two primes per side.
        Last edited by OMNIETY OMEGA; 07-09-2015, 10:58 AM.
        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


          #19
          Originally posted by OMNIETY OMEGA View Post
          So basically, the winning team has access to a wider range of vehicles, have many taxi vehicle choices available around the map...
          I actually feel like this is a more fundamental problem, and it might be worth considering ideas that target this aspect of ONS/WAR.

          The snowball effect is very real, and it arises as a result of the design decision to have 'vehicle factories' associated with nodes. If the concept of vehicle production is disassociated from node control, and instead made some kind of team-wide resource, then the mid-game will hopefully become more viable and also make comebacks more feasible.
          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


            #20
            Originally posted by OMNIETY OMEGA View Post
            This depends, usually by the time the enemy has captured prime with an orb, the ally's orb carrier is at the other prime node/side node or elsewhere in the map. Unless your own team is very skilled at orb running, usually there would be enemies already at/near the prime to shoot down incoming taxi's and hoverboarding/on-foot orb carriers. This buys time for the enemy to taxi their own orb to the prime node and lock it down. Also note, the winning team has access to majority of the vehicles in the map and spawn points. On top of that, most of the time the Raptor and Manta are used to taxi, both of which are easy to take out. If one hit is taken while on the hoverboard and grappling, you pretty much fall over and screw up.

            Using the orb for defence and lock down of your own primary node is viable, but your team has less access to a wider range of vehicles, and also it'll become a battle of attrition while your team slowly takes out one of the side nodes. In many cases, I've seen the enemy team send a few to the core, mostly to take out any taxi vehicles there as they respawn. But your point is entirely valid in the fact it depends on the map too.

            So basically, the winning team has access to a wider range of vehicles, have many taxi vehicle choices available around the map, can use any of the nodes in the map to spawn, and can use the orb to lock down the opposing prime node in their possession. So while the orb can really help to make comebacks, it can also help to prevent it, which kind of defeats its primary purpose. With the right setup, the enemy team can prevent a comeback entirely, assuming the only vehicles and spawn point the ally team has is the main base, which should be under attack. All of this node locking however, doesn't apply to maps with two primes per side.
            It's true, the Orb helps both defenders to mount a comeback, and attackers to secure victory.

            This is ok!

            After the attackers build EP, the defenders have at least a couple chances to make an Orb-run to recover Prime before the attackers taxi their Orb in from all the way across the map to lock EP down (as the distance to cover is much shorter for the defenders).

            (Let's also note how the very act of the attackers taxiing their Orb from across the map temporarily relieves pressure on the defenders, by removing two attackers from the main front for several seconds — indeed, sometimes the attacking team elects not to send anyone back to Core/Orb immediately for the taxi for that very reason, because they'd rather try to pin the defenders back with the territorial advantage they currently have than risk giving the defenders a few-seconds-long window in which to recover.)



            Now, if the defenders fail too many times at recovering their Prime, and then also fail to prevent the attackers from securing EP with an Orb-lock ... well then, the game just keeps progressing on to the next stage: the attack on Core is accelerated, and while defenders may still attempt Orb-runs to recover Prime, success is made that much less likely by having to first take out the enemy OC.

            This is ok too!

            The defenders have opportunities to recover ... but if they don't, then better to allow the game to keep progressing and, probably, reach its end. (Worst case is the deadlock: defenders can recover Prime relatively easily, but are guaranteed to lose it right back before they can destroy all of the secondary nodes — i.e., single-prime ONS in a nutshell.)



            By drawing focus and creating "windows of opportunity", abstractly, what the Orb adds to Warfare is a constant source of short-period ebbs and flows — like an alternating current. That oscillating force helps keep the game moving, in both directions, at all times, and prevents those dreaded deadlocks. Those are good things.

            Comment


              #21
              Originally posted by Wail View Post
              I actually feel like this is a more fundamental problem, and it might be worth considering ideas that target this aspect of ONS/WAR.

              The snowball effect is very real, and it arises as a result of the design decision to have 'vehicle factories' associated with nodes. If the concept of vehicle production is disassociated from node control, and instead made some kind of team-wide resource, then the mid-game will hopefully become more viable and also make comebacks more feasible.
              Could we achieve those goals without subtracting anything?

              At its essence, the Node–Vehicle Factory association does make a lot of sense. Like, intuitively, for beginners. "I achieved the mini-goal of building this Node, so this new vehicle that spawned here is my reward." That's a story that tells itself. That's valuable.



              What if, instead, we could just refine that association a bit, and still enhance mid-game and facilitate comebacks in the same way?

              I think this could be done simply by making vehicle production a function of the associated Node's health — that is, the less health the Node has, the longer the respawn interval will be for each of its associated Vehicle Factories.

              This way:
              • Freshly constructed nodes start at full production, which keeps the game progressing. This favors defenders who are mounting a comeback, and attackers who've earned a shot at finishing.
              • A team's locked nodes that are left almost-destroyed behind the main front won't yield vehicles as quickly, which either compels them to spend time rebuilding their locked node or causes them to have fewer resources with which to "roll the snowball", as it were.
              • Losing a "node race" is not quite as unproductive a result, since by having damaged the now-locked enemy node, you'll have slowed the enemy's advance on the node behind you that was destroyed.
              • A too-reckless attacking team that neglects to keep its nodes powered up is likely to soon find itself on the unpleasant end of an even stronger counterattack.


              (And shucks, maybe even those silly knucklehead players who squat on a favorite vehicle waiting for it to spawn might find their selfish interests aligned with doing the team-first thing of tending to the local Node's health ... maybe. )

              Comment


                #22
                Originally posted by Veggie_D View Post
                Could we achieve those goals without subtracting anything?
                What I'm proposing isn't subtracting anything, it's just different.


                I don't have a lot of faith in thinking that associating vehicle production with node health will meaningfully affect the downside that the winning team gets access to a whole map's worth of resources, while the losing team usually only has access to their core (base). In fact, this would probably hurt the losing team more than the winning team.
                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
                  Originally posted by Wail View Post
                  What I'm proposing isn't subtracting anything, it's just different.
                  I may have presumed certain details you left unspecified. (From what I gathered, for each side you want to try holding the overall availability of vehicles constant, leading to a sparser distribution for the winning side, and easier recovery for the losing side.)

                  What the proposal appears to subtract is simply intuitiveness. As in, "Why does this vehicle never spawn here anymore?" ... "Will capturing that Node elsewhere eliminate this vehicle spawn?" ... those confused questions seem all too likely.

                  But, maybe I read you wrong — set me straight.



                  I don't have a lot of faith in thinking that associating vehicle production with node health will meaningfully affect the downside that the winning team gets access to a whole map's worth of resources, while the losing team usually only has access to their core (base). In fact, this would probably hurt the losing team more than the winning team.
                  The Node health–Vehicle association would, by definition, temper the material advantage of the team that controls most of the Nodes. (Also note, this effect is meant to apply only to Nodes, not Cores.)

                  It can only be the pinned-down losing team who would generally benefit from this.

                  (In addition, the Node-health effect could be plausibly scaled according to distance from Core, which should further help the losing team.)



                  Otherwise, the concern over mid-game and resource distribution seems to have a more straightforward solution, through good map design — i.e., place more vehicle spawns back at the Cores, and leave some of the midfield nodes empty.

                  Worth noting:

                  (1) This design was indeed leveraged, to good effect, in some Warfare maps (but never in ONS, to my recollection) — e.g. WAR-Floodgate has vehicles only at the distant Center Node while the more-trafficked Primes and Flood are empty; WAR-OnyxCoast has all of its vehicles only at the Cores.

                  (2) Warfare did not suffer from the snowball problem like (stock) ONS did. This wasn't only because of the Orb.

                  IMO we'd be wise to draw anything we can from those already-solved problems.

                  Comment


                    #24
                    Well I have to say its refreshing to see a civil discussion going on here, rather then the complete nonsense that usually takes place here.

                    Lots of good points and suggestions here. I have to say after coming from ons, I was very disappointed that Epic was still making choke node setups, and I really didn't like the orb at first. Maps like Floodgate and Serenity actually did work well with the choke node setup. I don't think its a direct result of the orb, but more of a great level design. Now that being said I'm not sure if Floodgate would be as good without the orb, just because you need to lockdown the flood node or it would be to easy to destroy it. I still wish there would have been more maps like 2K4 Dawn and UT3 Dusk. They both have duel links to the core and also give you a cut-off route.

                    I do like the suggestion of not being able to lock down nodes with the orb, but I would maybe like to see that just implemented for linked nodes, and allow unlinked nodes like the countdown node in Flood to still be lockable with the orb.

                    Yes there will be some issues with the orb, like wrong players taking it and bad decisions being made with it, but nothing is ever perfect. Of course the orb doesn't have to be in every map. Some maps work well with the orb and others not so much, that's where play testing comes in.

                    My biggest fear is that DM and CTF will bomb so bad that Epic will cut their losses and move on, and we will never even see this gametype in UT4.
                    YouTube Channel

                    Comment


                      #25
                      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.
                      To clarify, the manner I'm using "core/base" is basically as (b).

                      My stance is that having a final, singular objective that has (100) health and needs to be destroyed to end the round has a negative impact on gameplay. The existence of this ending focal point gives rise to choke nodes (specifically primary) and the need to "funnel down" the action; however, there can't be too many nodes connected to the base, otherwise the tactical concept loses structure and it becomes a "base race". While maps with 2 nodes connected to base were generally an improvement, not all of them were as successful as ONS-Dawn, and it severely starts to limit node interconnectivity design, which makes map design more difficult. While increased map size and adding vehicles helped in masking this design limitation and allowed for more "in-between the primaries" action, it did so at the cost of foot gameplay and the intensity/speed of the game type.

                      I feel (c) is common in tactical objective gameplay (at least in video games) and would prefer it stays. Furthermore, I also advocate having a way to outright win the round - but not via a singular last objective that needs to be destroyed (especially when it's also the "spawn point of last resort" location).

                      Point (a) is an interesting one; it's hard to get around the problem of the "spawn point of last resort" - if there is no base, and you have no nodes, where does one spawn? In WAR/ONS it doesn't make sense to have random spawn locations because of map size / weapon lockers. Hence, enter the "spur node", which was created in response to this situation. However, I wouldn't say this "eliminated (a)" - instead, it just moves the location of (a). Separating (a) from (b) is a good idea, but yet again, it dances around the problem of choke nodes in response to a singular last objective ("base" ala (b)).

                      It's easy to understand the need for clarity here. In ONS/WAR, the "spawn point of last resort" ((a)) and the singular last objective that needs to be destroyed ((b)) are basically the same thing/location. However, in other games, the spawn point is typically decoupled from the objective, which means what's referred too as the "base" is typically (a), and (b) doesn't exist as a single location. Point (a) is difficult (impossible?) to remove completely, as players always need somewhere to spawn. Point (c) is how to keep score, and while important, isn't directly related to my problems with the "base". But when it comes to (b), I feel there is an extremely good case to be made that not only does it need to be separated from (a), the game type itself needs to be redesigned to not have a final singular objective in one (predetermined) location.

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

                      My hope is that tactical gameplay is increased via more node interconnectivity, i.e. more than 1 node at all times that's attackable, but the options should be somewhat limited. In short, I want to take the best ideas of ONS/WAR and combine (further merge) them with the "standard" CnH model. Examples are numerous, and it's wise to examine some implementations of the tried and proven "capture-and hold" (CnH) game type model:

                      UT Series - Domination (3 CP)
                      World of Warcraft - Arathi Basin (5 CP)
                      League of Legends - Dominion (5 CP)
                      Battlefield 3 - Conquest (CP# varies, usually 3-5)

                      And many more not mentioned. The same concept has been applied across numerous genres of games, and the fact it consistently works and is accepted by players means it's doing something right. In the majority of cases, (a) is decoupled from (b); this is why while a "spur node" is a step in the right direction, it's doomed to fail because it's still within the framework of having a singular end objective. The whole premise of the CnH model is that it's the "capturing-and-holding" that wins the match, but this usually assumes access to all CPs by both teams - but that's not really the way it works in ONS/WAR . . . once the winning team captures-n-holds the enemy prime, the losing team cannot access any node behind it. This arises from having a singular end objective (base), which in turn creates the need for "pathways" to said base, but not so many it's a "base race", and thus the choke node was born.

                      I feel that trying to add a singular objective that ends the game (destroying a base) to the CnH model was a good idea, but ultimately produces limitations that drive the design philosophy too far away from a CnH model (for the worse). Instead of adopting more of the CnH model in UT3 (which potentially could naturally relieve the choke node problem, spawn camping, etc.), from my perspective they doubled down on the idea of keeping the base and tried to solve with brute force by introducing the orb. Of course, this takes it even further away from the CnH model because the orb has so much affect on, and somewhat undermines, the capture-n-hold process . . . add in the fact that the singular end objective remained, and it just wasn't the game play I was hoping for.

                      Whether a person likes this style of play is just a matter of opinion. My personal preference is I'm looking for more of a standard CnH model because I think it creates a better game experience. If the orb fits into that after the CP structure is refined, then so be it. Ironically, I can see how something as powerful as the orb was potentially advantageous if the objective was to continue to deviate from the standard CnH model; adding a singular end objective can really break the CnH model, and it takes something as powerful as the orb to try and address the problems that are created.

                      For me, it's not about the orb, because the orb was just created to account for the effects of deviating away from the CnH model. The real question is, and always has been since the moment 2k4 ONS was released, should the singular last objective (base) be scrapped, thus pushing the game type toward the more traditional CnH model? My answer is a resounding "YES", and the anecdotal evidence of how popular and well accepted the traditional CnH model is should make everyone at least seriously consider this. In theory, in doing so the need for the orb disappears (as do other problems), which is why I'm here beating the drum on it . . . because if the base is scrapped and node interconnectivity revised, the question of "should the orb be included as default" either becomes a moot point, or at least takes on an entirely different meaning.

                      ---

                      So exactly what am I pitching for?
                      1. The CnH model with connected CPs (control points / nodes)
                      2. No singular last objective to destroy ((b))
                      3. Team base acts as "spawn of last resort" ((a)) and dynamic vehicle payout / weapon locker
                      4. Team base is more centered in play area ((a))
                      5. Game ends when a team simultaneously builds all nodes except one ((c)), or:
                      6. Has a typical implementation of CnH model scoring systems ((c))
                      7. (Numerous other tweaks to address winners momentum, legit comeback potential, gameplay experience, what happens in node "cutoff" situations)

                      It's a slight modification on the CnH model, whereas IMO having a singular end objective is a large one. The starting point is the tried and true CnH model, but with linked nodes and the base ((a)) more in the center of the map (if you linked every CP together, it'd basically be the typical CnH model). The starting concept to play is as simple as "capture all the nodes". Like the board game Risk, the "CP/node interconnectivity" is the same idea - you can attack what you're connected too (CP), but you can't attack from half way around the world. It's a key difference than the typical CnH model where everything is free standing, and you can attack any CP you desire.

                      This creates a problem with the typical CnH implementation - it doesn't scale well. Increasing the number of free-standing CPs spreads out the action too much, thus yielding the typical odd numbers of 3 & 5 as the number of CPs. But by staying true to ONS/WAR and keeping the CPs linked, it allows more CPs to be added while maintaining focused action at the "battlefronts" between nodes. It would almost always allow for 2+ options on where to attack, but even with increasing CP numbers wouldn't allow for more options than a typical 5 CP CnH model game.

                      This in turn would allow "bigger" maps that still scale - and because everything is "free-flowing" (i.e. a typical CnH model where one may potentially swap ANY CP with the enemy multiple times) since the core ((b)) was removed, time should be spent more evenly between the CPs, thereby utlizing more of each map. Another downside of choke point nodes is that disproportionate time is spent around those locations, leading to faster map burnout and under utilized map space.

                      Having a condition that ends the game, unlike the typical CnH model where points just escalate quicker, allows more drama to occur, and this moment could happen at any CP (the CP build on the current 2nd to last node on the map), thus creating far more map replay ability. Beyond that, there's numerous CnH model scoring systems around that could be reviewed. I could go on and on with the development of how to enhance the CnH model, and did in the previously linked thread, so let me wrap this up and finish with:

                      When it comes to a potential new game mode in the vein of ONS/WAR, it makes sense to broaden the scope to all objective based game types to see what has traditionally worked. I enjoyed ONS because it tried to enhance the CnH model by adding a singular last objective, but I feel that probably didn't improve the game experience and WAR didn't really address it (by removing it). The base ((b)) needs to be removed and the game play should be a CnH model with connected CPs; instead of the first option (ONS), let's try the second option this time:
                      - CnH model with linked nodes and singular last objective
                      - CnH model with linked nodes (and orb?)

                      This is the unrealized potential of ONS and a UT vehicle game mode in general - other games couldn't pull this off because they play too slow (ahem BF3). A CnH model with ~8-14 linked nodes, with paths that crisscross, on a map just big enough for vehicles (and the nodes), but just small enough to get around on foot, could create the best arena style vehicle game mode created yet, which is true to UT.

                      Comment


                        #26
                        I'd like to see better balance between node play and orb running. In Warfare, orb running was absolutely crucial and it became the main focus of the game. It was like as if it was Bombing Run but with vehicles. Important secondary and tertiary mid-game node objectives that must be captured without the orb, and toning down the orb running dominance of the game play would help put more focus back to the nodes. Majority of the time, it is the orb that does the node capping, even if its not for a comeback. It's all about dragging the orb carrier to the node asap and in a split second just touch the node for an instant cap, rinse repeat. Some maps had secondary orb spawn points too, which further placed emphasis on the orb. The moment your orb runners screw up or when there's no taxis left, the tides can turn instantly. When there's a lot at stake due to the orbs, I feel the gametype is too reliant on orbs and everything else takes a back seat. I mean one can sit around shooting a node for ages and then building it slowly with a Link Gun. But why do that when you have the orb on constant cycle to do the whole map's node gameplay asap. The worst is when a new player or troll grabs the orb. It's pretty much an instant loss. That's how dependant this gametype is on the orb.
                        Last edited by OMNIETY OMEGA; 07-12-2015, 01:12 PM.
                        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


                          #27
                          Originally posted by Kronos[X] View Post
                          Well I have to say its refreshing to see a civil discussion going on here, rather then the complete nonsense that usually takes place here.
                          Definitely agree Kronos[X], let's keep that going here.

                          I played UT3 Warfare competitively with «púß° for a quite a few years and participated in the EU vs USA 10v10 match (which RPGWiZ4RD was also in). I ran orb predominantly, so disclaimer, I'm probably a little biased. That said, I'll try to be fair in my feedback.

                          Idea's for fixing the orb being overpowered include:

                          a) Decrease radius for locking effect to take place (make someone stand much closer to the node so he/she can't hide in the corner)
                          b) Only allow the locking effect on your prime node, no other nodes (including enemy prime). This would help teams come back after they lose their prime.
                          c) Remove locking feature all together.

                          Originally posted by RPGWiZ4RD View Post
                          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.
                          +1, I know flings aren't something Epic intended to have but I agree the game type won't be the same without hoverboards and grappling. Warfare felt very team oriented. Partly due to the orb and grappling. Each team has to be in constant communication on where their orb carrier is and ensure someone is there to tow them. The orb brings a teamwork element, requiring teams to decide when to defend a node or when to attack with the orb.

                          I'm also not a fan of public matches determining how a gametype should be designed. Gametypes should be fun for new/casual players, but still have complex mechanics that players/teams can master and encourage competitive play. Team gametypes reach a new level of fun and intensity with organized play. Players have defined roles and of course teamspeak/vent.

                          Imo, I don't see the ONS style of play really working in UT4. The majority of Epic's maps have been smaller and with many walls and close corridors. Massive maps with 10 + nodes and 20+ players in public matches leads to very unorganized and slow play. I prefer Warfare's general map layout with Core -> Prime -> Center <- E Prime <- E Core + Countdown/Side node. Competitive matches were played 6v6, which imo is a good number to shoot for. Anything above 10v10 in a public match for me isn't fun due to ping and spam issues.

                          All that said, why not have both options? In UT3 the orb, vehicles, and side nodes were all optional features for map makers. A Warfare map could have 20 nodes, no countdown node, and no orb. It's all optional.
                          Last edited by Infra`; 07-12-2015, 09:39 PM.
                          Join us for friendly UT4 Pugs at irc.globalgamers.net #ut4pugs

                          Comment


                            #28
                            Coming from a ONS/War championship UT team.

                            UT2004 ONS was about speed building nodes. We would use the manta with 4 players on to go to first node to build quickly. This was all about speed and team work. We practice this so much that we took over maps fast. Always send best DM after there first node to slow them down.


                            UT3 Warfare was about Orb controls. We would use Manta to pull the Orb runner and have one DM master with shock waiting for Raptor coming over after the Orb runner. Again this was about Speed and team work.
                            UT3 Orb tactics was all about going after the other team Orb runner successfully while protecting your Orb runner.

                            Teams had to have good Pilots, DM skills and tactics.

                            I can hardly wait for when UT4 ONS is here.
                            UT99/U2/2003/2004/UT3 Unreal Life Doz Digital Studio UT MAP MUSIC https://soundcloud.com/dozier-mills/

                            Comment


                              #29
                              I think the competitive players and clan players will want the orb on the competitive maps for clan v clan competitions. UT3 sized maps for 4v4, 6v6, or more. Towing the orb and towing the flag runner are all about teamwork.

                              The orb doesn't need to be in every map. In larger maps with many multi linked nodes, there really isn't much point. It's designed to take a while to slog through. It should be up to the map maker to add the orb or make it optional. So, call the maps without the orb ONS and the ones with the orb, WAR.

                              From experience, the redeemer will usually clear out any node, orb or not. The team does need to pick it up and use it successfully.

                              When the vehicle pack or whatever is released, it needs to have at least WAR/ONS and vCTF and it needs to be big and playable. That way the clans will embrace it along with players old and new to UT. Players need to have fun, not frustration.
                              Weekly Warfare Matches. We play every Fri and Sat 12:00 Midnight to 04:00 AM, US East Coast Time, GMT -5 hrs, EPIC North America Warfare #2

                              Comment


                                #30
                                I think this is a fair way to do it, have some default maps without orb and some with it. Of course, the grappling/hoverboard system is still up in the air or possibly something new but I saw that system mostly positive and can hardly find any faults with it while the orb I can find arguments for and against but personally I'm definitely more "for it" than against it but I'd gladly remove the node-locking ability so it enforces more aggressive forward push (since it's so powerful when no damage can be done to it) and so you can make easier comebacks when enemy prime is taken (then capping node instantly with the orb is a godsend). I disagree about the Torlan example of locking down prime node is that important to make comeback on it since it's fairly easy to stop an incoming orb, it just need someone defending the node (read Stinger spamming the poor guy) from incoming raptor tows. The lockdown definitely favors the enemy holding down prime node especially due to always having so many spawned players around it being able to stop the incoming orb so you're like always outnumbered as the orb carrier trying to bring back prime so the odds are always against you.

                                Since we can toy around with ideas right now, what about if modifying grapple mechanic a little bit so that you use Link Gun to grapple (because it just fits looking at UT2k4 and then combining it with hoverboard) and the grapple can even be connected with more players than just one as a chain (I think a reasonable upper limit would be 3 players though) but the caveat is, it consumes some ammo so you can't like grapple 3 players forever and the more players that are connected the more ammo it consumes which makes it an interesting decision whether to travel fewer/one player a further bit or 2 or 3 players a shorter distance. This will ESPECIALLY make clangames more interesting since now it's much harder to predict enemy's move at start especially and this will make it more interesting to spectate and follow matches (streamed) since there's so many things to ponder about pre-game. The commentators could be talking forever with strats.

                                If using Torlan as a measure, say one player could easily grapple from the base to the enemy prime node or possibly from base to enemy base roughly while two players could grapple to the middle sidenodes / center of the map roughly and 3 players a distance roughly to prime node using for example the Manta as the vehicle.

                                This will also make vCTF very interesting since the incoming flag cap attempts have bigger attack waves when you can come with up to a vehicle+3 guys in one group which makes the matches harder to control (how many players should be on defense vs attacking), it becomes more "back-n-forth" game if using hockey as reference where it's always more interesting to watch games where it goes constantly from goal to goal instead of really hard / stationary clanmatches. Not to mention the amusement of taking down a Raptor with 3 guys hanging onto it high up in the air seeing those flies dropping down and get an instant mega-kill.

                                For public games that are often in WAR/ONS limited to upperlimit of 32 on a lot of servers, this would also mean it speeds it up / becomes more intense since more players can travel around faster without having to go by foot/hoverboard only.

                                I'd love to try this idea out personally. I can't say how it plays before I've played it for a while but it sounds like a fun idea.
                                Last edited by RPGWiZ4RD; 07-21-2015, 03:18 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X