Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is this game dead?

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

    Originally posted by nvz View Post
    Epic needs to hurry and figure something out before other games overshadow this project completely.
    What games? There are no decent arena fps out there. By far imo UT is currently the best, even in its current state.

    Comment


      To echo and paraphrase what joellll is saying, there are core aspects of this game (and not just with movement, but most importantly with movement) that are so far removed from what is good about arena shooters, that it is absolutely irrelevant at this point in time to worry what UT game UT4 is turning out to be most like. Since some aspect of game play from virtually every angle is promoting +back more than any previous UT, the worry should be how similar to CoD/CS UT4 is, and not to which of its predecessors.

      Movement efficacy, weapon switching, weapon efficacy, damage taken messaging, team engagement radar, player movement sounds, hit box inconsistencies, collision incongruence with visuals, armor tooling, and even shooter strong ping compensation, all contribute to punishing aggression in this game. The skill ceilings are low, viable play styles are few, and the result will be poor player retention.
      Originally posted by Mysterial
      An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

      Comment


        joellll -AEnubis- I just believe Epic was always seeing their game on a larger scale (I mean it actually never was a purpose-built high fidelity ultra-hardcore competition machine - although it somewhat supported that kind of use). All the same this time - they just used good-enough numbers for acceleration/velocity/dodging, then added wall-movment/sliding features, and that it. What's actually bothers me for current game is a ping compensation. I wonder if that mechanism is actually responsible for all that complained motion and aiming "viscosity". I'm not a algorithm expert, but from what I see ping-comp works best for linear motion, and doesn't "likes" sudden changes in acceleration and direction:

        ---- following is my personal speculation on how I see situation around movement for current game ----

        - mmo naval battles - good for prediction
        - mmo tank battles - also good for prediction
        - mmo warplane battles - higher speeds, but no sudden direction changes, so ping comp is also possible
        - mmo fps shooters tend to have "naturally" restricted movement (no dodging, momentum-based approach, scripted change of location like teleporting for Tracer in OW) - all this helps ping comp work better (let's say on a consumer-grade quality level)

        Finally, UT which trapped itself, with its trademark twitchy movement when player could change his movement direction to opposite in a matter of few frames (which is very hard to predict even in theory). Initial implementation of ping-comp showed prediction errors, sync problems (warping, unregistered hits, etc). To counter this they tried smoothing motion/aiming (you might remember recently they even tried to battle AD-spam). As a result we now have movement that seem good enough for a non-expert eye (but actually has flaws you're guys were talking about).

        As a bottom line I see three possibilities here:
        - although snappy movement is possible - it's hardly possible with deeply integrated ping-comp (because "right" accelerations and velocities would just result in prediction errors and non-regs)
        - looks like with ping-comp we have no other options except less-sharp input response
        - ...or probably Epic guys simply missing something in their code

        p.s. all above however doesn't explains reasons behind things like slower weapon switch times
        Last edited by exo7341; 07-24-2017, 01:55 AM.
        - got sig? -

        Comment


          I have mentioned before that the movement could be intentionally retarded to smooth out a prediction model for ping compensation. This could also be why the game is turning heavily to prediction in terms of play, as it's being made easier to predict for the compensation model.

          I don't support ping compensation either. Even though they are leveling out the visual inconsistencies, 1. They are still more numerous than without it, 2. It still heavily favors the shooter, and thus is an opposition to the dodge, and counter play, 3. it effects prediction based weapons in such a negative way that their skill ceilings need to be dropped to compensate, and 4. It still doesn't level the playing field.

          This could also be another part of the reason for enlarged collisions, and minimum damages, because with them, projectiles simply couldn't keep up with point and click scans, since using them with this prediction model, basically feels like your ping is tripled. After years of learning to compensate the whole arsenal by a number of milliseconds, having to think in two different time frames is absurd. Scans like 0 ping, but projectiles like the average server ping. Sometimes it feels like you have to lead the target their ping, and not yours. The prediction model may level out target acquisition some, but lower pings make it exponentially easier to dodge projectiles, even if those projectiles don't appear to be quite where they actually are, or appear smaller than they are, which is all sometimes the case.
          Originally posted by Mysterial
          An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

          Comment


            exo7341 My question will sound shorter, why not take UDK\UE3 with UT3 source code, or what was used there, use the last UT3 community ballance-mod patch, and try to improve overall process and try to make it look maximally "duel-tactics and hardcore" oriented in UT3-like game (gameworld). I mean rework all variables and see what game process looks like. Was this done? What was the result of this or similar research?

            Or UT3 game structure is so complex that no one began to do this. Written by very highskilled programmers code - is a rare example of gamedevelopment. That's why no one takes it. It is very rare, complex and very risky development-model for decision-making by first-tier people in Epic games. I do not know who else to ask, except you. But it's very interesting to know this.

            Comment


              Originally posted by Andriushka View Post
              exo7341 My question will sound shorter, why not take UDK\UE3 with UT3 source code, or what was used there, use the last UT3 community ballance-mod patch, and try to improve overall process and try to make it look maximally "duel-tactics and hardcore" oriented in UT3-like game (gameworld).
              Well that's the thing - what community balance mod?

              UTcomp is basically the only competitive mod that's ever been widely adopted and that doesn't actually touch weapon balance, it just adds some quality of life utilities like brightskins, hitsounds, and custom crosshairs. Certainly people here and there have tried to make balance mods, but these tend to always be received as one individual's personal preferences rather than reaching a consensus of what's best for the game.

              Looking at just UT99 there's a litany of issues like the horrifically spammy sniper rifle, ginormous headshot hitbox, extreme link beam and minigun DPS, potential death to random flak shards sitting on the floor, and so on. Based on how much UT99 is praised compared to the rest of the series, you'd think people would have modded those issues out a long time ago so they could enjoy what's otherwise "the best UT", but after 18 years, people are still playing vanilla UT99 merely with redeemer removed.

              Then in UT2004 there was a ton of complaining about issues which could have easily been fixed or at least improved via some simple mutator work, yet apparently no one could ever reach a consensus about the best changes so nothing was ever adopted beyond brightskins.

              I remember posting my own balance mutator back in 2004 with alternate versions of every weapon already built out, which could have easily been molded by community feedback. Honestly, if there had been a unanimously negative response, it would have been an improvement, because instead it was mostly tumbleweeds and crickets. Literally Aenubis was the only one who posted any extensive feedback, and the fact that we are having almost the exact same back-and-forth discussions 13 years later shows how little progress the UT franchise has made.

              UT3 suffered the worst because the botched launch. Eventually a small dedicated community built up around the game, and some extremely dedicated modders did a ton of work despite few people being around to appreciate it, but again no consensus was ever reached regarding weapons or movement. Competitive modding was restricted to UTComp and map packs like HOLP and COMP - which are good efforts in their own right, but don't address some of the issues we're talking about here.

              But the basic takeaway here is that despite all the modding efforts and enthusiasm of the UT community, they're not as good at problem solving as you might think. They can come up with UTComp and competitive map packs, but they can't reach a consensus regarding weapon or movement balance. Even now in UT4 there are probably some mutators which play much better than the horrid vanilla UT4 gameplay, yet no one is using them on their servers. So while I'd like to have a more optimistic message, the sad reality is that most UT players will either not play at all, or just take whatever Epic gives them, rather can be industrious and come up with a superior solution.
              Last edited by Gnalvl; 07-24-2017, 12:32 PM.

              Comment


                Originally posted by Andriushka View Post
                exo7341 My question will sound shorter, why not take UDK\UE3 with UT3 source code, or what was used there, use the last UT3 community ballance-mod patch, and try to improve overall process and try to make it look maximally "duel-tactics and hardcore" oriented in UT3-like game (gameworld). I mean rework all variables and see what game process looks like. Was this done? What was the result of this or similar research?

                Or UT3 game structure is so complex that no one began to do this. Written by very highskilled programmers code - is a rare example of gamedevelopment. That's why no one takes it. It is very rare, complex and very risky development-model for decision-making by first-tier people in Epic games. I do not know who else to ask, except you. But it's very interesting to know this.
                To add to what Gnalvl said, I think UT3 was made by totally different team at Epic. Besides, its engine is also a bit different compared to current one (rewriting all code from UnrealScript to C++ anyone?). Making current UT meant a lot of work in any case (regardless if it was going to be based on UT3 or not). Still, I'm afraid true reasons why they didn't tried to just improve UT3 will be unknown to us. This game is most 'unusual' - to say the least - among other titles. And since communication with devs seem to be working single-way only, we could only do one of two at time: either accepting what they do, or voicing our opinion. But we can't make a conversation in order to get answers. Besides, some answers can't even be said officially tbh.
                - got sig? -

                Comment


                  Looking at just UT99 there's a litany of issues like the horrifically spammy sniper rifle, ginormous headshot hitbox, extreme link beam and minigun DPS, potential death to random flak shards sitting on the floor, and so on. Based on how much UT99 is praised compared to the rest of the series, you'd think people would have modded those issues out a long time ago, but after 18 years, people are still playing vanilla UT99 merely with redeemer removed.

                  Then in UT2004 there was a ton of complaining about issues which could have easily been fixed or at least improved via some simple mutator work, yet apparently no one could ever reach a consensus about the best changes so nothing was ever adopted beyond brightskins.

                  I remember posting my own balance mutator back in 2004 with alternate versions of every weapon already built out, which could have easily been molded by community feedback. Honestly, if there had been a unanimously negative response, it would have been an improvement, because instead it was mostly tumbleweeds and crickets. Literally Aenubis was the only one who posted any extensive feedback, and the fact that we are having almost the exact same back-and-forth discussions 13 years later shows how little progress the UT franchise has made.
                  Its all sound like there is no solid fan base in this gameserie. If they hate and do nothing. Do not check UT3 variables, but make game more texture off becouse Quake 3 vanila pro. If this true. Starcraft community for example do so much if you compare with current as I understand.

                  And its all strange. Why peoples write something and I am on this forum, if ideal UT is already exist

                  What in general is the true community doing here? If they have what they need. If they already have studied along and across UT99 source code and already developed a separate game made by mod makers. Why do they need this UT\UT4 if this game by default will not be hardcore to the extent that they need it. I read some unofficial fan UT forums, they already wrote a lot of criticism even about this UT of 2015 stage. What gameplay element do they need to make the game at least similar to the true UT game? Drag the game variables like a cow for an udder in the empty 3D corridor scene with basic weapons? Which playstyle they need if the ideal playstyle has already been achieved in this video like. I mean after UT3 game I expected that the current UT community and forum full of starcraft like players. But this is absolutaly different things as far as I understand. And if you consider that I know what is UT99 game and I completely understand why Epic games developed UT3.

                  exo7341 Tthanks for the explanation
                  Last edited by Andriushka; 07-24-2017, 12:46 PM.

                  Comment


                    exo7341 On the main thing, I again forgot to get an answer. Are you want to say that the people who are currently developing the current UT did not even touch UT3?

                    Comment


                      Originally posted by Gnalvl View Post
                      But the basic takeaway here is that despite all the modding efforts and enthusiasm of the UT community, they're not as good at problem solving as you might think. They can come up with UTComp and competitive map packs, but they can't reach a consensus regarding weapon or movement balance. Even now in UT4 there are probably some mutators which play much better than the horrid vanilla UT4 gameplay, yet no one is using them on their servers. So while I'd like to have a more optimistic message, the sad reality is that most UT players will either not play at all, or just take whatever Epic gives them, rather can be industrious and come up with a superior solution.
                      The reality is that even if you came up with an objectively "best" version of what the game could be, nobody really plays anything but the stock core gameplay. Even mods that make ridiculous changes to some aspects of the game rarely stray very far from that core.

                      That's why it felt so important to get that fundamental aspect of UT4 right from the very beginning. But we have been fought on that the entire process.

                      I don't think the problem is that members of the community can't come up with something better. That's just not what people are looking for when they mod a game. There are definitely people who think problems exist that don't really (UT3 was a good example of that), but there are also people who don't think problems exist that do. FWIW, there have been times in UT4 where the mods were way more popular than the base game. But the people who made that more popular don't come around here anymore. And Epic has made it much more complicated to create that scenario with all their firewalls between people playing the game (between Quickplay, hubs, and "old school" [such a dumb naming scheme]).

                      It's unfortunate in this case that we have to use a "student becomes the master" example in order to illustrate the point of how bad the movement in this game really is. Overwatch has better, faster-feeling, more fluid, more snappy movement on their slowest characters than UT4 has. They have better player-to-world scale and feel. This isn't about gameplay synergy with their other systems. This is just about the very basic, fundamental aspects of the game that fit the "arena shooter" style. Why can Overwatch achieve this, but UT4 has struggled throughout the entire development process to get there? I'm not sure how anyone sees UT4 as a contender with Overwatch when something so fundamental just doesn't measure up. That's the kind of thing that affects how people "feel" about the game. They might not be able to explain what's wrong, they just know something is wrong. Like in UT3.

                      It's also worth noting that Epic had a very similar problem with Paragon. In the first tests, one of the biggest complaints was about the muddy and slow movement speed. That issue made it almost all the way to public release. The game lost about all of its players before Epic admitted they were wrong and increased the movement speed.

                      But, I dunno. Maybe this project is abandoned at this point.
                      HABOUJI! Ouboudah! Batai d'va!
                      BeyondUnreal - Liandri Archives [An extensive repository of Unreal lore.] - Join us on IRC [irc.utchat.com - #beyondunreal]

                      Comment


                        Originally posted by sunflowers12 View Post
                        ut4 dead before born
                        Originally posted by MΛuL View Post
                        I love the contrast of your username and statement .

                        Comment


                          Originally posted by Andriushka View Post
                          exo7341 On the main thing, I again forgot to get an answer. Are you want to say that the people who are currently developing the current UT did not even touch UT3?
                          I wouldn't say that. If you followed this game since 2014 you might remember how early playable builds back then were extensively based on UT3 assets, hud elements etc:


                          Still, I doubt they ever considered something like UT3 evolution...
                          - got sig? -

                          Comment


                            This community is great at problem solving. The issues are more psychological, and philosophical than anything.

                            If a mod does something you don't like, it's easy to fall back on the base game. So unless you can achieve consensus, or near enough to it, and the fringe just "puts up with" the things they don't like (like neon glowskins, for example), the reality is your mod becomes fringe, no matter how good it is. If the base game has aspects you don't like, is it easier to lean on a mod/make a mod, or play a different game? Mod makers are also usually pretty aware of potential community fractures, and no one wants to cut the player base in half. As such, it becomes a tricky game of compromise. If the base game is bad, however, we're not even at square one, so who is going to stick around for modders to fix the game? Hope they have some marketing savvy.

                            If you have a subjective preference for the game, and the objective solution effects you in a negative way, it's basic human psychology to project your subjectivity on the mod maker. "It's not objective, the mod maker just likes it better this way, I'll just play the base game." Essentially, it's the default assumption that every "player" is being subjective, and "players" make mods. You don't get dev creds the second you whip anything up in the Ed. So the only assumed objectivity comes from the source. Objectivity is a very "takes one to know one" concept that is extraordinarily rare among humans.

                            The only other options is to get a dedicated community to keep putting time into a mod until is spreads. That's after putting in the time and volunteer resources to essentially make a new game, less the engine, and maybe a lot of art content. I've seen it happen with a game type, but the game type was fashioned around the base guns and movement, and just designed to utilize them better than the stock game types did. When you change the feel of the core gameplay you face a whole different set of hurdles.
                            Originally posted by Mysterial
                            An instant hit, accurate, instant kill weapon is overpowered. There's no skill ceiling. It's limited only by the shooter's accuracy. It also severely impairs the defensive side of the game - ignoring ping, it is nearly irrelevant what your opponent does - click the right pixel and you win. Even non-instant kill instant hit weapons are often problematic - the Shock Rifle example is obvious before even getting to other games.

                            Comment


                              I know how important the creation of mods takes place from Unreal one game. And this forum full of people who write their own scripts and mods, make art at the developer level. And what UT99 cult is. Back in time this game was something fantastic in all feelings. But for me its hard understand - 50 people now, high skilled programmers, 3D artist, sound designers etc develop the game being an ancient clone of basic UT + clone of all imitators or similar modern games. And this is the last chance for the entire UT series and only in this "e-sport" form seems to be an anecdote. Its strange having UT3 example, its code and understanding why developers made this game to develop this thing. Why and for whom put the ancient rudimentary gameplay in a new UT shell if "true" fans will hate it by default. What does the game development to e-sport? People can take random 3D engine and make their Quake with blackJack (weapon alt. fire).

                              As I understand the main stage of this forum "who play pro-UT he have the right to be called UT players, who play games like UT3 are idiots". It's not a surprise. But the problem is that half of "pro-hardcore" players consider themselves as such only because when they started mp match in UT games. It is not surprising that the development of the current UT is the main reason not to develop UT4. Becouse as they know the fans (who 0.02% writing on the forum) want the real UT game. The fact that someone there asks about vehicles is their problem. there are so much idiots around UT game, becouse casual devs in 2007 want use "GoW framework" and make this dirty fail. People are too smart and appreciate their time to delve into the intricacies of this fail. Now we develop the real UT game, Our dedicated fans know and will do the best gameplay in the eSports universe. We will do the best graphics meeting all modern standards of e-sports. Nothing extra, nothing casual, only glory hardcore and true competition. Increase player base with new players as mach as possible for the new franchise - Unreal tournament.

                              But unfortunately there is always a server where the "work on the insta-rifle balance" does not stop since UT99. And much-more-true players of this server just say - we dont play this joke, which they develop, And accordingly there is a logical question - for whom in this "galaxy" is being developed this UT. "Hurry up, the Quake is already in beta" is not a reason. I can understand the reason of making UT4 or UT Online something, but not that. "50 programmers-3D artists" make true e-sport title. Are you seriously? Or I do not understand something global on this forum. UT is about be a big game with "content and gameworld", and not about be a Quake clone or be a ancient engine (UT99) rework. What does the beginning development or "e-sport" has to UT3 or UT4 continuation, except develop something "modern-hardcore" and stick to it the seemingly UT elements and convince the UT99 player and modern cybersports that this is Unreal they want. Do you understand the "unreal" word meaning? To have the unique UT99 hardcore gameplay better and more hardcore then Quake has! Its is not about vehicles and pew-pew. Do you understand the "tournament" word meaning? Its about high-skill progression! Becouse tournament! Becouse Unreal tournament and sport oriented(!) UT99 game. But this all remains to be only words. The UT3 game does not consist of words, it consists of gameplay elements. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of current develop process which is seen from the outside.
                              Last edited by Andriushka; 07-25-2017, 06:39 AM.

                              Comment


                                Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                                The reality is that even if you came up with an objectively "best" version of what the game could be, nobody really plays anything but the stock core gameplay. Even mods that make ridiculous changes to some aspects of the game rarely stray very far from that core.
                                Originally posted by -AEnubis- View Post
                                If a mod does something you don't like, it's easy to fall back on the base game. So unless you can achieve consensus, or near enough to it, and the fringe just "puts up with" the things they don't like (like neon glowskins, for example), the reality is your mod becomes fringe, no matter how good it is. If the base game has aspects you don't like, is it easier to lean on a mod/make a mod, or play a different game? Mod makers are also usually pretty aware of potential community fractures, and no one wants to cut the player base in half. As such, it becomes a tricky game of compromise. If the base game is bad, however, we're not even at square one, so who is going to stick around for modders to fix the game? Hope they have some marketing savvy.

                                If you have a subjective preference for the game, and the objective solution effects you in a negative way, it's basic human psychology to project your subjectivity on the mod maker. "It's not objective, the mod maker just likes it better this way, I'll just play the base game." Essentially, it's the default assumption that every "player" is being subjective, and "players" make mods. You don't get dev creds the second you whip anything up in the Ed. So the only assumed objectivity comes from the source. Objectivity is a very "takes one to know one" concept that is extraordinarily rare among humans.
                                There's some truth there, but other communities have managed to overcome those challenges.

                                Take CPMA in the Quake community for example... When Quake 3 hit, many diehards felt that it'd been too casualized and that too many key aspects of QW and Q2 had been discarded, so a group of them developed a consensus on how to improve Q3 and executed those changes as a mod. Granted, CPMA did start out as a small subsection of the larger Q3 community, but at least it was there for the people who wanted those changes, which is more than we can say for a lot of the requested changes in the UT community which either never got implemented at all or if they did, never made it on any servers. More importantly though, CPMA's influence reached much further than its immediate playerbase.

                                OSP borrowed CPMA's ruleset wholesale and popularized a ton of its changes. UTComp's key ideas like brightskins and hitsounds came straight from CPMA. It inspired many standalone clones like Warsow and Reflex. As its popularity grew, it did divide the Quake community somewhat, but the community endured regardless. Then years later when Quake Live hit, many of CPMA's changes were popular enough that Id adopted things like lower hitscan damage, stronger projectiles, non-random shotgun spread and a 3rd armor pickup, as standard parts of the main game, and even hired CPMA's lead to help with their PQL moveset. In short, the mod managed to influence the developers to adopt changes for the better, in a way which may not have happened if CPMA never existed, and instead you just had people on forums asking for all sorts of random stuff without a consensus.

                                UT has never had such a project to unify the critical side of the community around changes Epic wasn't willing to make. When you have that, not only does it give that side of the community a playable product which is closer to what they want, but it puts pressure on the devs to consider those changes for the future. To be fair, Epic has adopted some community features over the years, like some of the voting and admin features from 2k4 UTComp available in vanilla UT3, or the one-touch dodge in UT4 which had been requested for a long time and only available in stuff like Fox Mod. Still, Epic probably would have got closer to what players wanted if there were already a popular comprehensive mod out there showing how those changes practically work in-game, and how the community has responded to them.

                                So that's really my criticism - there's a ton of creativity in the UT community, but somehow they lack the capability to replicate what other game communities have done in terms of adopting their own gameplay balance when the developers haven't stepped up to the plate.

                                Originally posted by Sir_Brizz View Post
                                Overwatch has better, faster-feeling, more fluid, more snappy movement on their slowest characters than UT4 has. They have better player-to-world scale and feel. This isn't about gameplay synergy with their other systems. This is just about the very basic, fundamental aspects of the game that fit the "arena shooter" style. Why can Overwatch achieve this, but UT4 has struggled throughout the entire development process to get there?
                                I don't really agree with you here. Maybe OW allows twitchier A/D spam on account of less momentum in the basic walking system, but the lack of dodge, wall dodge, etc. really damages the overall feeling of movement. Sure, a few characters have "movement abilities" but they don't really compare; Tracer's blink lacks the momentum of a true dodge, McCree's roll is really just for reloading, Pharah is all about hovering statically in the air to get cheap kills on people who are too dumb to look up, and there are a ton of characters like Zarya and Zenyatta who would be really fun with some kind of movement ability, who have none at all.

                                I played a lot of OW in the opening months just cause my girlfriend was really into it, but ultimately quit largely because the movement felt so painfully boring. At the time, my friends thought I was holding the game up to impossible standards, but now you're starting to see streamers and pros backing away from the game due to the staleness of dive comp, which is really all about exploiting the gap between characters that have movement, and characters that don't. I really think if every character had been given some basic movement ability like a dodge, the meta would have stayed fresh longer, and if Blizzard is smart, their patches to address dive comp will result in a sort of "movement inflation" where everyone gets more movement.

                                So again, maybe OW lets you A/D faster than UT4, but I still prefer the latter's ability to dodge, wall dodge, crouch slide, etc. UT4's movement certainly could be better, but it doesn't actively bore me nearly as badly as being stuck with a slug like Zarya or Zenyatta.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X