Archive for the ‘Forum Replies’ category

Improving at ut4 and fps games in general

PayBack; Some people are just born with faster reflexes, better eye sight or a higher drive to improve or excel.

These are factors but the fact you think major differences come down to reflexes or eye sight show how little you actually understand improving at gaming.

Straight up you should not be involved in developing the game if your base assumptions for majority of players being better/worse is “reflexes and eyesight”. This is completely wrong. For the sake of simplicity lets roll “aiming ability” into reflexes and assume that it is a natural “skill” that some players have and others do not have. Makes sense right?

This is completely wrong and there are many ways to improve, even if you never work on you aim. In fact the breadth of options for improving in arena fps games is one of their major appeals to myself personally. Many of the changes in ut over the years push more and more requirements on to aiming, which is sad because it makes for a flatter experience.

In Paybacks defence if he has not been involved in any other gaming communities for the past decade+ he is unlikely to have seen any “good” content relating to this. UT ideas seem to have stagnated in 2002.

So if your entire background is unreal tournament and you have never consumed “how to improve” media from other franchises…. well then this is sort of understandable. ut seems to be a microcosm stuck in 2002, permeated by the same ideas as 15 years ago. If you compare the progression in counterstrike or even quake content it is easy to see how stagnant ut is. Look at zaccs tutorials and then compare this to what is available for cs, quake, overwatch. The difference is huge. ut tutorials are literally “click and weapon does THIS”.

You can improve but you first need to break away from the concept of “my aim is my aim and I will never improve it”. This goes doubly for ut4 duel.

Do arenafps have classes?

PayBack; I really think Epic and this community need to take a good hard look at what makes a successful game in todays market. Quake added classes, for better or worse, I think its fair to say that giving players variety in their characters and play style is a very important piece of modern day video games. People want a tailored experience, they want to use characters and weapons that best suit their play style and needs. Back in the late 90s early 2000s, video games were all about skill.

Your argument is basically “well other franchises do it so ut should as well”. ut should do it if it creates a better game, not just because – perhaps in the case of flagrun classes make sense.

arenafps have “classes” and these are often harder counters than similar setups in class based games. Players have always had the ability to have variety in play style in arena shooters, quite often in a wider range than similar class based games. The main difference is that you do not spawn with the “class”, you need to pick it up AND you have access to other classes provided you spend time picking up those other weapons.

If you have sniper you are able to play in a way that a player without sniper can basically not counter without obtaining one of their own. This is a super hard counter.

If you have a close range weapon the same applies. In ut4 this somewhat comes undone because there are so many close range weapons.

A big part of the “problem” is that players do not “see” this as classes, while the sniper example, at least in ut, basically hard counters everything at long range. This is why loadouts in quakelive were not a huge “problem”. Players could not get rockets/lg/rail out of the gate and could only select one of the holy trinity. This meant they were only maximum effective at one range.

If we take this example to CTF and item layout we can change things in the following manner. Using the sniper as an example.

1) Put the sniper on the way to the enemy flag, where players will always go when attacking. The sniper is now a “fast” weapon as you can pick it up on the way to the enemy base without spending any time. The location of the shock on ctf-outside would be an example of this.

2) Put the sniper out of the way, possibly even away from spawn points. The sniper is now a “slow” weapon and if players wish to use it they must take time to obtain it, cutting into their attacking time. An example here would be placing the sniper up near the top rockets on ctf-outside, possibly extending the corridor further, while making sure to remove any spawns around here. See the image below, if the rifle was off frame where the green arrow is pointing.

Obviously this is not the same as having fast/slow characters like teamfortress does, however it does impact the game. If players need to spend X seconds each life obtaining a weapon rather than going straight for the enemy base, this will heavily cut into the amount of time they have to attack over the course of a game. This is also quite limited in ut4 because all many of the weapons fulfill the same role.

And yet if mappers did this with popular weapons, for example the ctf-outside example, it would be criticized by the player population for odd placement. “Sniper is too far away from the common thoroughfares” would probably be feedback.

The more skill you had the better you were at the game.

Epic should use gathered stats to give players a class(ification). If a player uses more sniper they are labelled that way. If a player dodges significantly more than average at their skill level they given another title. And so on. If the skill ceiling is high, and broad enough players themselves become “classes” based on how they play. The same way a player has a reputation for using shock, rockets, superior movement, timing, etc but everyone will get a “class” rather than a handful of the best players. On the flip side qualities that are low, like average speed, top speed, distance traveled could be taken into account and used to describe the player. If you aim well, but never time or pickup health packs you get a particular title that is less than flattering.

For example, when I was playing I had super high 100a/50a pickups compared to belt pickups compared to everyone I played, even when looking through other players from other regions.

This is not just to classify a player, but to also make them feel unique without giving them ability points to distribute.

 I dont want character progression that unlocks special abilities, just something to give a player a tiny little edge and something to work for. Maybe one player builds a character with 5% further dodge, this allows him to more easily make a trick jump that a non leveled player would have a more difficult time with. Those are the tiny leveling schemes im talking about. Not some major special ability unlock.[/QUOTE]

Movement should be designed so it is deep enough for differences between players to manifest themselves naturally. UT movement may not allow for enough differentiation between players and if that is the case then perhaps that would be excellent to look at.

Because quake movement uses mouse movement it tends to differentiate player skill much better. imo anyway.

The future of unreal tournament

Why does this game keep getting horribly worse with every update?

Because ut until now (this version/this versions development) has been an arena fps and Epic are now creating an “arena fps inspired shooter”, which sounds something blizzard would have said about overwatch. Epic are no longer making Unreal Tournament because they are no longer making an arena fps.

Our goal is for Blitz to become the primary 5v5 game mode for Unreal Tournament. We want to retain some of the core ideas of what make Arena Shooters fun, while at the same time modernizing aspects of the game that may be stuck in “legacy land” for no particularly strong reason. Source

So it has come to the point where they are no longer making ut. They are making a game that is potentially inspired by ut but is not an arena fps. Sounds a bit like this. If Epic had stated that they want to retain the arena fps core and modernise other aspects that would have been fine, however they want to keep some core ideas that make arena shooters fun. An example from overwatch. Widowmaker has a grapple, which is obviously inspired by quake 2 CTF and kept the core “idea” of the grapple. The grapple in q2 is fun and it is retained in a manner that makes it fun still, while essentially making it nothing like grapple in q2 at all. Given the hardon epic have for ow this is a direction that is reasonable to expect. The new LG is (or was) an almost direct rip of the ana gun – which is sad because it is such a garbage and uninspired weapon.

Unreal Tournament is an arena shooter, if these aspects are removed it is no longer unreal tournament. Things that make a game an arena shooter in my mind are – weapons, movement, lack of classes, fast respawns and pickups. These do not always apply, as CA/TAM have rounds and no pickups yet would not make a game not-arena fps. Weapons is a fairly broad concept but if you compare ut/quake to cs/cod one gets the point fairly quickly.

Maybe Epic are confused as to what constitutes an arenafps – perhaps Sid purely thinks of arenafps = gametype. You know.. there is an arena, there are pickups, etc. Deathmatch. If that is the case.. fine, but at the same time it is difficult to imagine Epic making that particular “mistake”.

The truth is they are making changes to core arenafps principals in order to make flagrun “better”. By the time they are finished the only thing ut about the new ut will be the name. It is not overly surprising that epic have gone the overwatch way. Their history is riddled with changes and copying other franchises without understanding – and luck. The Unreal franchise started as a magic carpet clone which then went on to become an FPS, probably due to iDs success with doom. From here there are amazing choices like shipping ut99 on “hardcore” instead of “normal” – basically a % modifier to many aspects of the game. It is hard to imagine that the game was designed with this in mind – create base game, apply across the board %s to make things faster and you are done? Is that next level design or straight up butchery. Likewise fast switch in 2k3, obviously taken from q3 with no understanding turned the game into shock primary -> lg -> shock primary -> lg, simply because the weapon switch negated the reload. This was addressed in 2k4, however why it was implemented in the first place boggles the mind – Epic don’t understand and given the complete lack of direction in the ut4 project this is unlikely to have changed.

Look at history.

Unreal – trash multiplayer, abysmal map list.
UT99 – decent multiplayer which is essentially a “fixed” version of Unreal with new gametypes
2k3 – trash multiplayer, abysmal map list.
2k4 – decent, the issues from 2k3 are addressed and the game is better. This is also because of more maps.
UT3 – trash multiplayer

UT3 never had a followup title. Epic iterated on their first two “titles” by releasing, polishing and re-releasing. This is not to say

Work on the future of Unreal Tournament begins today, and we’re happy to announce that we’re going to do this together, with you.

Work on a game that is called Unreal Tournament started that day. Epic have announced that it is no longer an arena fps so it is no longer ut.

Wall ride with lucio!

ProfessorGanymede: Did you notice how much damage I took while I was wallriding?

It is a good example of where to wallride – that tall, narrow corridor thing with access from up the wall puts you above players line of sight from the get go and obscures you once you are there. You have another example on nepal and while you did not take damage (or took minimal) in that video either you were “open” to people shooting you from anywhere inside the main room. You were basically exposed to everyone entering the room.

Around 1 minute you are above the point on the Nepal video. You say you don’t shoot because you don’t want to draw attention (in more words) but if players really looked you would die.

Now, currently it might be legit to play in this manner as players across the board seem to not notice lucios behavior. This would either be because few players wall ride well or because the players heavy, obvious, wallriding works against are straight up unobservant. Personally I think that the playerbase has not matured to the point where they are comfortable with more vertical play and more specifically they are not used to a character like lucio being up on the wall. Players coming from modern fps can aim but do not cope with this sort of thing. A good parallel here is Pharah. Even at low-mid 60s I often had mccrees that did not shoot the enemy pharah. This does not make pharah a good pick (end of season 1 meta), it simply means players who should shoot you might not.

This smacks of gambling.

I play with some older arena fps players and they do not struggle with lucio wall riding. “Lucio wall riding” *lucio proceeds to die*. You would have been dead in that nepal video very quickly unless the flags hide you in some way.

Compared wall riding to Lucio trying to dodge. Lucio with passive speed + adad spam is very hard to hit. His hitbox is small. His animations are pretty crazy. Making him straight up hard to track. Wall riding is almost identical to running in a straight line*, just not on the ground, which is why it is currently decent. Players can easily track an enemy running straight – thus players can track a lucio wall riding. They just don’t do it. This is similar to terrible target selection most players exhibit.

Now the question that really should be asked is “Am I harder to hit when I wall ride compared to when I adad spam with passive speed” and the answer should be obvious. The latter makes you harder to hit in most situations where as the former makes you inconspicuous to some players but much easier to shoot for ones that do see you. Going back to the gambling this is the point where you have to make your own call as to which to use. As the game matures I think we will see blatant out in the open wall riding reduce as lucio will just die when he does it.

If you can LOS most of the enemy by using wall ride, then excellent. This video is a great example of this behavior. The Nepal video in my mind is not

*If not worse because at least with running in a straight line you can drop straight into evasive action instantly rather than needing to drop (also easy to track) until you hit the floor.

And if you are on the ground strafing, good players WILL be able to hit you. ESPECIALLY hit scan characters like Mcree, Widow, and Tracer.

Moving in a predictable, straight line on a wall. Or even worse, stopping the wallride to bounce up the wall. Or dropping off the wall and falling a significant distance.


Moving back and forth rapidly perpendicular to your opponents aim with passive speed.

The only way the latter does not work against those characters for the smaller hitbox characters is if the netcode is wildly broken. They will still hit you, however they will hit you at a significantly reduced % compared to walking in a straight line across a wall.

the enemy team did have a Tracer that was wrecking my team.

This is in hind sight after your positioning was pointed out. This sort of thing should be in the video. “I am here because the tracer can’t get me”.

There is no tracer in the video I linked.

But there are plenty of situations where it is more useful than strafing on the ground, making yourself easy pickings for hitscan characters.

When you are wall riding you are slower, more predictable and easier to shoot compared to when you strafe spam with passive speed. If you can position youself using wall ride to LOS these characters then that is superior to fast adad.. otherwise no.

I even agree that with the current player base wallriding like 1:00 in your nepal video is probably fine and you won’t get picked off. However flat out stating that wall riding makes you harder to hit is bollocks. It makes you easier to hit unless you can LOS your opponents using it. It doesn’t matter that you are up on the wall unless the wall you are on heavily effects your opponents LOS to you. Perhaps a series showing parts of maps like the kings row stairs would be useful to support this piece.

This is similar to players jumping when in fights to try to throw off their opponents aim. Does it? Yes. Does it as much as adad with passive speed? No. Because there are times when you are moving in a much more predictable manner.

Here is a relevant anecdote from another game I play(ed). During UT4 development Epic added a “sprint” feature. This is a passive that kicks in after a player runs forward for.. 3 seconds. The player speeds up until they stop running or jump or turn too sharply. In UT land players have the ability to dodge by double tapping their strafe keys, resulting in a quick movement left/right/forward/back. This is typically chained together for faster forward movement and has been a staple of the series since unreal1. Even though sprint is faster than chained dodges noone has ever specifically used sprint to move faster because the player is too predictable/easily tracked. The edge cases, where sprint is useful is not because it is faster but because it is quieter than dodging. Once again we see that running in a straight, predictable line is a bad idea.

Like wise when players are trying to dodge in quakelive they generally stay grounded so they can adad – jumping, even on the flat, increases your predictability.

I don’t know what your gaming background is but if it is modern fps like cs, cod and bf I fully understand why you would be skeptical of this idea of grounded strafing and unless someone comes forward with a rebuttal or a reason why (outside of “this is not the case”) then it will stand.

The one thing that could change this is the netcode.

I don’t even feel you can’t even really comment on how effective this is because.. you do not do it.

UT4 Bright Skins and Player Visibility

NATO_chrisjm: The community is enormously fractured, and while things like visibility are universal the views on possible solutions are wide. It doesn’t help when the devs make a firm statement such as ‘we don’t want brightskins’ a chunk of the community yell at them that it’s going to be a failure if it’s not included. Feels like there’s a lot of distrust coming from the community right now, which doesn’t encourage the devs to open up.

Overall a well thought out and put together post.

Player visibility is one of the key points epic could have handled better during Unreal Tournament 4 development. There was a lot of noise about difficult to see players and Epic repeatedly stated that they did not want to go the neon bright bright skins route and would solve the “problem” using other methods. This seemed acceptable for many players and the ones it was not fine for was more from a “we don’t trust you or your track record*” rather than “that is impossible” point of view. Of course there was a minority (often vocal) that refused to accept that there was any other way to do it, but lets ignore them. Player vis was an aspect where epic could have easily won points from the community by actually implementing something, even to the point of pushing it a little far (to win supporters) and dialing it back at a later date. They did open up about this point.

However nothing was done. Then some community members created threads comparing methods of player highlighting – followed by bright skin mutators (not a problem) and then Epic finally pushed something useful in the last few builds. This is not to say that the community brightskins spurred Epic to put their own solution in place. Are the new Epic skins perfect? No. Is it good enough for shells? Probably, they are a huge improvement on shells on a map like chill. Are they good enough for meshed maps? Probably not. But it is better than one of the previous Epic visibility changes that was along the lines of “slightly changed XYZ by 1.27% to improve player visibility”. When they make changes to something that is essentially zero change it is hard to think they will implement anything… or approach it at such a slow, teeth pulling rate.

But they have only implemented changes recently. They should have done it months ago.

This is different to weapons being considered OP by large swathes of the community – you could create a game with a weapon that is ridiculous and if that is epics vision then, whatever. You could also create a game where all the players are black. But to straight up state that they want to address a problem in a specific way then do nothing? Or the equivalent of nothing (slightly changed XYZ in a single build). It is understood they are a small team but it was/is a fairly large point that they specifically commented on – and their track record has been poor on this aspect of the game from 2k3 onwards. So if they were planning something it would be important to show us rather than just say “Yeah we don’t like bright skins but you will have to deal with it until we get around to doing something”.

Maybe points from the community don’t matter, or whatever, but this is not an aspect like crap mouse input that is difficult to track down, diagnose and fix, if that is even possible as it may be the underlying engine that they lack control over.

*This was reasonable and further highlights why this would have been a good place for epic to start winning the support of the community. If the current red/blue visibility was in game.. 12 months? 6 months? ago when this was a hot topic it would potentially have gotten more people on side.

Unreal Tournament Visibility Track Record

So for new comers, players that never paid attention to this or just curious bystanders some explanation may be in order. It was easy to see players in ut99. It was very difficult to see players in the base game of 2k3, so epic implemented shoulder mounted lights – horrible sprites that sort of solved the problem. utcomp came along and added glowstick style bright skins as well as force model which was accepted by the competitive community. 2k4 came around and epic put their own version of bright skins in, which was probably acceptable, but once again no force model (from memory).

The whole visibility saga was replayed in ut3 in a similar manner.

Not sure this is 100% how it played out but it is roughly there. Not learning from past experience is most certainly one of Epics more annoying traits.

Showdown level design ammo considerations


  1. Keep ammo more in flow than out of it. Unlike weapons where you’d choose to go to a particular area of the map you’re unlikely to do so for ammo alone; thus pickup up ammo should only require small diversions and be low risk.
  2. Spread it evenly across the map, and in theory useful to particular weapon routes.
  3. Keep ammo numbers equal to avoid biasing one weapon.

Some counter points. I understand this is primarly coming from designing dm maps (and I disagree in part there, ammo can be used differently) but needs additional thought for showdown.

1) Alternatively you can force a player to spend more time obtaining ammo at the expense of not being able to do something else. Get armor, pressure enemy team, cover team mates, get other weapons etc.

Goes without saying this is during the early pickup phase of showdown. Scavenging ammo later is different and not what we are aiming for here – and not what is achieved with spread out ammo in “the flow”.

Players must gamble on leaving ammo up and pushing for other weapons/pickups at the expense of another player potentially picking the ammo up. If ammo is always in the flow players will simply pick everything up they can as they travel from A to B. This is not to say ammo should be wildly out of the way but rather (for example) the ammo cache near the pad side mini lift on ASDF. It is out of the flow.

ammo on dm-asdf

Given how the gametype works I disagree that players are “unlikely” to make diversions for ammo. Single pickups may not draw players the way larger pickups do early game but should not be given away for free* by placing them directly in player movement paths. Two ammo packs can make a larger contribution mid-late game compared to the very limited amp pickup early game. Maybe even one ammo pack.

* The currency is time and this is severely limited in showdown to player opening moves.

2) Grouping up ammo buffs the importance of 1), to the point of it possibly adding another weapon/powerup “importance” point that is neither a weapon or a powerup. If a player knows their opponent has shock they can potentially deny their ammo, or the majority of their additional ammo.

In the picture below when there are two single packs A there is only one route to take – if the “something important” was a jacket, belt, amp, boots this would be the next pickup after the first ammo pack “in” the flow. The alternative is dropping out the center top then going up the stairs for the weapon. Both provide the same pickups in different order. When the ammo is a double stack at B there are more choices and possible repercussions for the spawning player. There are three possibilities with enough travel time to make each different.

Grouped ammo

In this way weapons could be organised near, but not next to, their ammo and players then have a number of choices after obtaining a weapon –

a) Take their own ammo. Add to team resources.
b) Take their opposing nearby spawn ammo. Deny enemy resources.
c) Ignore ammo and go for the closer pickup (armor, amp, belt, etc) and risk losing the ammo.

Outside of weapons and pickups this is not a large consideration for showdown currently and adding an additional layer of “objectives” could only be considered a good thing for showdown since they are rather quickly exhausted with higher player counts in the current game. Extending the opening moves further is a benefit.

Further to this, if there is ammo somewhere else on the map a player or team may not opt to risk themselves for a single pack but two? Maybe more chance for this to happen.

On the flip side it could be interesting if ammo is not near weapons and players need to share weapons based on what ammo they have picked up. For example if player A spawns and receives two rocket packs but player B has the rocket launcher, they need to meet up and rocket player needs to drop weapon before using the last rocket in order to eek as much potential from the teams resources. For a “teamplay” based team this could be a huge boost to potential damage output.

If the flow is player movement between point A and point B players would leave if there was a reason to, a single ammo pack is not a reason but two may be. Finding the trigger to get players to change their ingrained behavior is interesting.

Ammo is slightly different in showdown due to the no-respawn aspect and showdown needs more player interaction drivers. It also come relatively freely in players minds compared to slapping down multiple belts, amps or additional weapons. Its only ammo right?

Both these points together also mean that if ammo is “in the flow” it must be near the weapon otherwise it will just be picked up.


Power ups
Dual ammo caches
Single ammo

25 health


3) There is something wrong with biasing one weapon? A map and areas on a map will favor one more than another. ut, especially dm maps feel very… samey. By and large most (except smaller “arena” style maps) have one of each weapon spawn. In general all very homogeneous.

Having pickups that are more desirable drives better player interaction. 1-2 weapons having more ammo makes these weapons more important without adding additional

This is not to say your points are not good, but the inverse also applies and can potentially make for interesting times as well!

Finally there have been posts about maps like asdf not being suitable for 4v4. Why not? There are sufficient weapons and pickups. If you screw up and get nothing.. that ss player fault. You now need to play accordingly with your enforcer and play near your team mates more than you might otherwise have to. This makes a weapon drop important and perhaps your team mates will oblige killing someone for you. 4v4 tdm on ASDF would be horrible, but I am not convinced showdown would not work.

Why is the unreal tournament keg overpowered?

MoxNix: two would be overkill even on a really large map meant for 10+ players.

Ignoring two kegs next to each other for a minute. Two being overkill for 10+ players seems to be stretching the friendship somewhat.

There have been quite a few comments both here and on irc relating to health > armor and how the keg is “not used” because of this. Until now this has not seen this expanded upon.

A keg offers the same amount of stack as a jacket – but a jacket spawns three times as often. With this in mind surely the jacket is relatively overpowered compared to the keg when used in duel, a gametype with 2 players? Even if only half the armor of the jacket is used each spawn (unlikely) this would give players three times the total of a keg?

Can you outline (or link to, or someone else chime in) why keg is not used beyond the usual “it was never on a ut99 duel map”. It behaves in a similar manner to belt, except it is less (100vs150), on a longer spawn time (90vs60) and if you pickup while damaged – the often repeated (downside) last second steal at low health with the belt – you can only ever benefit from damaged base+100. For example when picked up at 20 health a player has 120h and cannot heal additionally. By comparison the belt can go from 20h/150a to 100h/150a.

Maybe it is how it interacts with other ut4 armor pickups? Jacket + keg is too much? But belt + 5 vials (ASDF) is almost this amount of stack. So perhaps the aversion exists solely because of belt+keg. A match up that would happen a maximum of six times in a ten minute duel, likely less.

There are upsides/downsides to both health and armor, belt included. Straight up stack the keg is roughly equal to a jacket but it has less impact over the course of a game because of its long spawn time.

How to make areas unique in maps?

So ask yourself in every important location: “where am I?” and try to describe it in 4-5 words top. If you can, your location is unique enough, if not then you need to give it more character.

Due to the nature of pickups this is always “flak” “shock” “belt” in arena fps. You can describe areas in 1-2 words. In other game types, perhaps, and in other games players give areas unique names. cs examples of banana, upper dark, lower dark, pit, goose, yet even these can be tied to the bomb site letter – short A, long B. etc – disconnected from any of your four points. Locations become pickup names because they are usually unique. Problems only arise when dm maps have doubled up weapons – in ctf maps doubles are handled via “their flak” vs “our flak”. Depending on the map double up in dm could be handled by high/low or similar. Only when this is not applicable do players need to look for more ways to describe things. The two shocks on temple for example – belt shock and amp shock. Easy. The map decorations will never come into it overall potentially cause confusion.

Take the outpost as an example. I only know the thing in the smelter room is a smelter because someone at epic called it that on a stream in the past. That is “shock room”. Done. If I had never heard someone call it the smelter I would wonder at they at the smelter or the drill – that is not really a drill.. and more a laser?

The pickups are concise, descriptive and for most cases, especially at lower levels are perfectly fine.

Now, having said that there are cases where additional information is required. How would one describe a player coming from rockets to belt on temple via the high route? Hm. This may need a name/descriptor, but this is at a much finer granulation than “what room am I in” scenario most players look at when trying to get their bearing. This level of naming may occur when players play together for competition. “Rockets to belt high” would suffice. Items again, but the relation of two. If there are particular routes that stand out and occur over and over then giving them unique identifiers might be beneficial – but this is going to the level where players do crazy stuff – my rtcw:et team named parts of a particular map after sections of the digestive tract. Nothing to do with the map or geometry.

This is not poo-pooing your four points at all, in fact I agree with them, but I don’t agree that they need to be done just so players can describe where they are – they can do this simply by looking at pickups.

Balance the ut4 flak cannon?

MoxNix;The real problem with Flak isn’t the number of shards, the damage per shard or the spread, it’s the hit collision radius on the shards… The same thing that makes air rockets so easy to hit practically guarantees multiple shards hit too.

I’m not convinced it is the root cause. Stolids original post makes sense but setting up a bot shooting range and modified flak with point collision it was very subtle. Had I been able to demonstrate significant, obvious difference in a video I would have posted. Alas while it did something it was not huge. It possibly extended the range of full shards hitting but 100units? From 600 to 700 units. Maybe.

I guess you could look upon it as increasing the player hitbox? A 10unit sphere would it provide an increase of up to 10units on the player hitbox (5units on each side compared to point collision) which increases the 84unit capsule to 94. This is slightly over 11%. You could look upon this as projectiles having 10% leeway compared to other attacks, but in practice it was difficult to tell between two flaks with point and 10unit collision shards. I just don’t think it will make the difference people seem to think it will.

Having said all that the shard collision should be changed back to point – this is something I feel rather strongly about. We have 15 years of ut and quake games with point collision (excluding ut3) and in that time I do not recall anyone ever saying that the “rocket clipped through the player and did not damage him”. Is there any reason not to have points?

One final thing that needs pointing out is reducing the spread* is not a solution if that is the only change. Currently flak shards travel faster than rocket projectile. Rockets currently have minimal splash and going for directs is the general idea – and are easy to hit for good players. If we were to go overboard and choke down flak so all shards were on top of each other we would end up with a “rocket” travelling much faster and dealing ~twice the damage it does currently. The spread can be widened until the desired max range for a full hit is achieved. However we have a problem – good players will still hit hard with this “less spread” flak. They will still be able to take the same fights they can currently. If anything they will hit more reliably to a longer range and deal more damage as a result.

There are two ways to approach flak range issues 1) Widen spread to enforce close range^ use and to put more distance between shards as distance from the shooter increases. Your side effect of “aoe cannon” is not really a problem – who cares if one or two shards hit a player every now and then? Provided you need to take 3+ shots to kill a fresh spawn beyond the effective use range your opponent its going to be able to kill you with almost anything else. This also has the side effect of differentiating the firemodes more. or 2) Aggressively tweak damage bleed over flight time so it kicks in much sooner. Tweak this so the damage reduction begins heavily at the range you want max damage to stop – because the ~1500 units it is currently is a joke, the weapon is not effective at this range at all already and the bleed achieves nothing. The down side to this is that the amount of damage dealt will vary.

The spread is nice and very quakelive shotgun-ish currently. Each shot is very similar. This is good

*like the 2k4 one. Mainly mentioning this because it comes up quite frequently as a “fix”.
^This is something I would love epic to address. Tell us what ranges are meant to be (eg close 0-500, mid 500-1500, long 1500+) for the ut4 weapons and what range each firemode is meant to be ideal at. This way the community can give feedback based on something. eg “Rockets are stated to be used out to around 800units but I find I am able to use them reliably at 1200+”.

Unreal Tournament 4 Spawn Algorithm

The spawns basically become outdated because the opponent can still move around the map while you are picking. [/QUOTE]

Possible solution: Upon death the player does not receive spawns to select until they click. Their first click gives them the spawns, the next selects as usual. This has the bonus side effect of stopping players accidentally spawning after death due to frantically clicking in during combat. Spawn selection is done using the enemy location at the time of the first click, not player death. Currently the killing player knows 100% when selection will occur, taking it partially out of his hands is important. The killing player can still influence the spawn, by staying at the location of the kill, however by doing so they waste time and they cannot go aggressive directly after the kill – or rather they can but their opponent may pause to respawn for a second.

If you were to drop spawn selection this becomes easier as you simply use the enemy location pick when the player clicks to respawn with a 4-8 second delay on forcing spawn.

Using the time of player death as the decider is not ideal.

On smaller maps like ASDF there’s no place to spawn you where the opponent wouldn’t be able to get within LOS to you in the time it takes you to pick a spawn.[/QUOTE]

The above change is a potential problem for maps like ASDF because they are small and have very good access between all areas from the center and imo not really fixable with a “spawn system”. With the current systems (ut4 and 2k4) players have a good idea where their opponent is spawning – with the above change the winning player can go mid and wait for the respawn. Neither is really “ideal”. imo this is asdf specific and I don’t think it would effect other ut4 duel maps as heavily – erase, solo, mimic, deck. Possibly protracted, but mainly because of the asdf inspiration. Picked these due to the recent cup..

Rather than the spawn farthest/spawn far away system an algorithm that takes distance of previous spawns into account could be used. Initially random and when the opponent gets a kill the player is given a spawn of similar “distance”. This would potentially mitigate “luck” of close spawns (due to them being reversed, giving the comeback player similar opportunities) while adding another layer of “skill” to spawns. Rather than knowing “killed him at X, will probably be at Y” players will need to remember the distance/order for their deaths in relation to the enemy player, pushing the potential “skill” cap fairly heavily. For this to work it would need to be applied at time of death with instant repsawns. For lower level players this still plays out roughly in the same way, close spawns are heard/seen and more easily converted and when the dying player becomes the killer they are given close spawns to work with as well.

Player A kills Player B – Player B spawn is selected randomly as close
Player A kills Player B – Player B spawn is selected randomly as medium
Player A kills Player B – Player B spawn is selected randomly as close
Player A kills Player B – Player B spawn is selected randomly as long

Player B kills Player A – Player A spawns close
Player B kills Player A – Player A spawns medium
Player B kills Player A – Player A spawns close
Player B kills Player A – Player A spawns long
Player B kills Player A – Player A spawn is selected randomly as long

And so on.

An example of where this may not play out as “fairly”. Player A high at rocket lift on asdf kills Player B on rocket lift – Player B spawns at pulse and dies instantly. Player B eventually kills Player A in front of jacket, under pulse. Player A spawns at upper pulse spawn because it is the “closest”. Player B is unable to chase easily as he is on the ground, nowhere near a lift. You could say in this case the player could swap to shock as soon as the killing blow lands and pop a core at the pulse spawn.. but there are less options.

The final “problem” that players would need to accept is that once a player is in “the lead” spawn killing changes from a known (killed here, likely there) to much more response based. There would be no way to know where the opponent is spawning, beyond areas of the map that happen to have more spawn points. You can spawn right next to the killer. However the usual “three bad spawns can loose the game” does not apply as hard as 100% random as you will be gifted three bad spawn when you kill them.

While 2k4 spawns did not need spawn protection they did influence how the game played, which is something that should be taken into account. Did they influence players in a good way or not?