Archive for the ‘Forum Replies’ category


Does ut4 have difficult to understand and access weaponry?

TheWhiteDragon: But for hand holding I’d point to the shock. It’s not immediately apparent that the mechanic is there, but the mechanic itself is intuitive. The first time it gets used on you, you know how to use it.

100% disagree that it is intuitive.It does not need fixing or explanation but it doesn’t work the way you think it does. Something that is less complicated and intuitive is pickups – you need them to perform better and they respawn after a certain time period. Yet pie charts are being added to pickups? How is the shock more intuitive than pickups?!

Being in favor of pickup times BUT saying the shock is intuitive is ass about. Both or neither.

To get a better view we just need to look at unreal and by extension ut99.

I played unreal once at a LAN shortly after it was released. I followed its development for a while prior to release and recalled a mention of the combo functionality. We played unreal quite a bit that weekend but I was the only one using combos in any way. Obviously this is much too small of a sample for any sort of meaningful analysis..

Fast forward to ut99. In the au/nz scene there was a small sub-group of players who played unreal online. These players were aware of combos and utilised them heavily because they rocked. csm and suicidal and two names that stand out from early days.

Few players shock whored at the start – even being aware of it I stuck to flak and rockets initially before building proficiency and worked shock into my hpb repertoire. I proceeded to stomp FFAs for months with it. Very few picked it up. Or very few compared to how many I, and the other shock users killed with it.

Even getting towards late 2001 players did not heavily use it. There were some, and it was more than at the beginning for sure, but if its “intuitive when its used against you” there should have been large numbers of players using it. From the beginning.

It is not intuitive. It is cool but its not something you can just go “oh that guy is doing X, I will too”.

You are right about saw on pulse too – it is not intuitive. Likewise centerview with rifle in ut99. Likewise rightclick on the rocket launcher. I don’t think they should be changed.

These are “knowledge” things – look at items and heroes in lol or dota. Think of weapon use as items and character abilities in these games. There are many, many options in those games yet players there are not complaining. These are currently some of the most popular games today and a large part of the “skill” is item / matchup knowledge. ut is simple in comparison, 10 guns. In fact it could be said that ut should be made more complicated in a “knowledge” perspective since “knowing” something can quite often translate to more depth.. blah blah blah.

The impact secondary was addressed in the ut99 “manual”. It was still useless back then. While I am not a fan of the 2kx shield gun (in fact I hate it) a “parry” feature would be cool. However with weapon switch times the impact hammer is not really a good candidate for this.

While I agree that things should be somewhat self explanatory having things that are not instantly knowable is not a bad thing.

I think the line should be drawn like this – If a new player picks up a ut4 weapon can they kill other players with it in a manner in-line to other weapons in a given niche? If the answer is yes then it is fine.


Are quake and ut weapons different balance wise?

Flikswich: between the “oomph” that ut guns are known for and the balance that a game like quake has.

No version of quake is super balanced really. From the outside looking in they are, but when you consider that ql duel is essentially played with three weapons, its hard to say that the others are “balanced” – At least not from a damage output or even usage perspective which is generally the catch call for balancing the rocket/flak in ut. For other gametypes with weaponstay turned off (TDM) shotgun and plasma are probably more interesting but when you look at ut gametypes and weaponstay it poses the same problem as ql duel, especially when mappers lean towards including all weapons. If the ql weapons were transplanted into ut gametypes with weaponstay on and added to levels the way they generally are in ut-land rl/lg/rail would be dominant still. Maybe a starting point before going down the arduous road of creating this weapon replacement mutator is to put forth what players see different weapons doing while keeping in mind how they were used in previous iterations. The biggest issue facing ut4 weapons is double up of fire modes and trying to make them unique. See: pulse pull. homing bio weirdness.

And even the ql community has cried blue murder over 7-7-7 lg for years, 80 dmg rail (previously 100)

quake2 has tiered setup which is interesting but hard to implement in ut as there are fans of every weapon and noone wants their fav gun relegated to the crap pile of the lower tier? Again this is not-balanced but it works well.

quakeworld has the most unbalanced weapons in the history of fps (maybe), no matter what players say about toxikk or ut4 rl, the qw rl blows it away. But this works really well. At least for TDM.

At the end of the day it comes down to what an individual player considers balanced.


Unreal Tournament 4 1v1 Impact of Switch Speed

Flikswich: That point is also where you can lose an entire full stack within the time taken to switch to a viable weapon and thus have 0 chance to actually do anything to someone who hid behind a corner and jumped you 😐

Not sure if you are over simplifying with the “hid behind a corner” example or not. So here we go 😀

With the ttk/damage output and amount of stack available this has always a possibility in ut. In all previous titles some weapons damage output was enough to “loose an entire stack*” to a player who lands one shot. With the ut armor system this needs to be at least partially possible as the out of control player can easily end up in a situation where they have nothing and the in control player has belt + jacket. This is how ut duel works and why max stack is quite often the topic of “how to balance duel” rather than more in depth discussion about armor/health. Its always been that way, even if posters do not realise why they are looking at max stack^. This damage output is also why pads alone are a poor substitute for jacket/belt and are of questionable use. The player with pads is still not able to take a fight without being one shot, and if they are not one shot they are so low they can be finished very easily.

By describing this as a function of weapon switch time rather than ttk you are missing the point. Even if a player was able to swap quickly – lets take the example all the way and say the game has instant switch like quakeworld, they will be unable to answer the attack before their stack is gone simply because of how high the burst potential is. Reaction time + aiming + other factors will render your stack mostly gone when you switch. Thus switch speed is not really relevant because the front load potential is so high that the player is stackless before they can react.

This is not to say that ut4 weapon switch time should be adjusted, I think it should. I just don’t think it will help in the situations you are describing much at all while preserving some semblance of out of control play. The main reason out of control works is because of the front load potential.

*Where stack is belt or jacket.

^Taking this into the quake realm we have a game where the player not in control has an option to build stack then take a fight. 100-150 armor (2ya+shards)


Unreal Tournament burst potential and duel

-AEnubis-: Not really sure I follow. If you have double the effective hit points, and weapons are balanced, being aggressive, I should need to land double the shots. Basically, have twice the aim.

Part of the problem is the weapon potential burst vs player stack in ut.

In ql burst is very controlled compared to ut. Uninterrupted plasma from close range (20dmg 100ms refire). Direct rockets (100dmg). Full shotgun hit (110 all pellets). LG ambush (6dmg 100ms refire). Keep in mind plasma/lg can be dodged after the attack commences and less than the damage of a rocket may hit. Landing 5 plasma balls puts it on par with a single rocket. Rail is not listed as it is significantly less and you cannot ambush at close range then push the fight due to reload.

These are weapons players can use to equalise stack vs an in control player. In a 200/200 vs 100/150 secnario any of these put the down player on a much more even footing. ~170/130 vs 100/150. The absolute maximum a player can give from an ambush before their opponent realises is around 25-35% of maximum stack. 35% being plasma at close range which is not a common occurrence. In ut top end burst is high in comparison. Full flak, multiple rockets (traditionally, not currently), combos, charged bio, headshots. All these options remove 100% of a belt. Even flak alt in its current state does 100-190 damage. Not as reliable but the potential is there.

Taking this further, these weapons remove more than just the belt. A player with belt can be left with no armor and sub 50 health.

You don’t have to hit twice the shots, you need to deal twice the damage, which in ut terms can occur in a single hit.

The high burst nature of the ut weapons is fun and is partially why weapon balance and the armor system are less important than in quakelive. However it does change the above aspect of the game. If double the effective hit points meant double the shots landed I would agree. However it does not and has never meant that in ut terms.

In duel a player in control (100/belt) being ambushed by these burst weapons will be on an even footing after one hit of the higher damage weapons.


UT4 Voice Announcements

Entropy Remember that the Announcers are about relaying important game feedback, not just filling your speakers with bass, so they need to be clear, concise, and inspiring. 🙂

Out of the samples posted here there is a single important piece of game feedback. Lead taken. Possibly denied but it depends how/what that is used for. Flag cap denied? There will probably already be flag dropped announcements and possibly flag returned? Quad denied? Meh. Not disagreeing that they should be clear, concise and (probably most importantly for the majority of voice overs) inspiring – just that they are not critical to the game.

Unless players think that displaying godlike as text and audio is super important. In fact it argued that spree rewards detract from important aspects of the game, especially in team games (play the objective) and cause players to concentrate on not dying rather than the flag.

Does the game itself become less if streak announcements were removed? Not really. Does it become less if streaks themselves are removed? Not really. They are essentially cosmetic but cause players to play differently, probably at the detriment of their team in team games.


UT4 Speed is like defrag for unreal tournament?


TimEh: But at the same time I feel that it should be the same movement that the game has. So the movements learned in SPEED can be applied to the game.

This is not really the case in the other games – defrag specifically comes to mind. While the movement basics are the same as you say, a player never needs them to the same level when actually playing. Learning to half beat strafe is useless when playing normally. It might give you a small benefit in a few very niche situations but over all it is not important. Plasma climbing is useful in game occasionally but it is to the tune of 2-4 plasma balls, not hundreds without self damage to accelerate the player to high speed. Two grenades + three rockets + plasma.. never, ever occurs in game but is in defrag.

There is a level that is considered “good” enough after two strage jumps. I don’t recall the exact number – ~700ups? in two jumps? Whatever the number was it is not huge and fairly easily obtainable. The measure would be bridge to rail or perhaps single jump RA on aerowalk. The one aspect is strafe pads, but these are only useful to lane 3?

The quake community recognises this – they don’t play defrag to get better at quake, in general they play defrag to play defrag. If adding movement mechanics or your suggestion of modifying the base (removal of dodge cooldown/ continuous wall dodge etc) gives a better experience for speed while keeping the theme of the game and adding more depth then it could only be a good thing.

I realise this is somewhat at a tangent to what you are saying (don’t add extra stuff to speed because it is then not the game) but the “stuff” that is in defrag is not really core to quake either. The quake stuff simply scales beyond the base gameplay requirements much better, which the ut movement does not do at all.

This is also not to say that you should add strafejumping or bunnyhopping, your examples of continuous wall dodge and removal of dodge cool downs would go a long way to spicing it up.

Its a bit of a pickle you have.


Dropping weapons is bad in TDM


If dual enforcers are strong then two players together with enforces are strong, except it takes two players coordinating and playing together rather than just dropping the weapon*

Hijacking this thread because relevant.

Throw weapon should be disabled in TDM. Quite often cited as a way to “improve teamwork” I will argue it manages to achieve the inverse – less teamwork or team centric thinking is required. throwweapon gives players a team oriented ability, this in an of itself does not increase teamwork.

Consider the following:

With throwing enabled

1) Pickup a weapon
2) Optional : Communicate you have a weapon available
3) Dropping weapon when a weaponless teammate is nearby

With throwing disabled

1) See weapon available – decide you do not want it
2) Relay this information to the team
3) Guard/wait for team mate, ensure enemy players do not ninja it.
4) Optional : Take weapon even if not required because of enemy pressure / other items spawning needing your attention (can’t leave a weapon lying around)
5) Team mate arrives, takes weapon. yay

2 could be considered optional the same way communicating you have a weapon available for dropping in the first scenario. However this does not make a great deal of sense as the player at the weapon could be waiting a completely unknown duration.

This scenario plays out when a player already has a specific weapon and does not need more ammo. This means it would rarely occur and when it does it is not overly important.

Even at this cursory glance level there is more communication and “teamwork” involved when throwweapon is disabled.

Removing throwweapon also involves deeper thought/planning on a per weapon pickup basis. Do I really want to take that weapon? What do my team mates have? Could someone else utilise it better than me? Where are my team mates (will waiting for another player take us out of the game too long?) These decisions need to be made when the weapon is still on its spawn plate or from when an enemy/teamate is killed and drops a gun. Some of these decisions are the same when the player has the weapon with weapondrop on, however they are made when the player carrying the weapon sees other players – and by and large occur organically rather than the forced model of no weapondrop.

Removing throwweapon also allows weaker teams to punish teams with individually stronger players via more efficient denial. If an enemy player is a beast with weaponX in order to deny with traditional throwweapon on the weapon must be denied every single pickup otherwise the opposing team can simply give it to the better player. With throwweapon disabled players only need to deny to the specific player that wants it.

On the flip side the team with the beasty weaponX player can make it a priority for the team to make aggressive moves onto the weapon so the weaponX player can take it.

This becomes more interesting at a lower level with uneven teams where it may be a case of one player being significantly better than his three team mates. With throwweapon enabled this player can simply be fed weapons by his team mates. With it disabled they have to go around taking weapons together.

Of course the obvious work around is killing ones self to drop the weapon, however this is a “cost” and would not always be a good solution unless the player is naked with that weapon alone.

And because thinking about this would not be worth all that much without an existing example we can look at Quakeworld. The original TDM game that works with 1-2 “strong” ut4 weapons per map on longer than UT spawns. And it works perfectly without drop weapon. Of course there are differences faster quad/armor, backpacks and much slower team weapon stacking come to mind – but it still plays perfectly fine.

*Coming full circle. If two enforcers are considered strong then two fresh spawns playing together will be strong. In a team game this makes sense for players to play together. There is much more teamplay involved in playing together in this way than the weaker aimer dropping their spawn weapon for the stronger aimer.


Unreal GladiatorBy guarding a weapon you are likely hurting your team by not getting frags thus allowing the other team to get ahead, you are also abandoning your team to fight a man short, and you make yourself an easier target potentially feeding the other team and signaling to them that a weapon is available near your. If they frag you they then get 2 guns rather than one.[/QUOTE]


Time is currency in duel and to a lesser extent TDM. In duel your stack and level of control should be dictated by how much free time you have available to pressure the out of control player… which is not relevant right now. This is not really how ut4 duel currently works.

In TDM with no drop weapon you would be trading your time (and possible kills) for the present (you weapon – team mate no weapon) while guarding a weapon for the potential of increased kills in the future (you weapon – team mate weapon). Working out if you need to stay, team mates communicating when they need guns, communicating that there is a weapon available, team mate responding and so on are all important aspects here. All of these leverage aspects of team play more than the simple act of giving the other player a gun^.

More decisions and trade offs are good.

With current dynamics the team may be “down” a man but the game overall would play differently and this as a result what you say would probably not be the case.

Your downsides are aspects players need to deal with in order to get team mates weapons. They don’t sound insurmountable, or even unusual. Don’t die, don’t make a sitting duck of yourself. Situational awareness and common sense that players should apply most times during play.

dropweapon/nodropweapon isn’t better or worse, simply different. dropweapon has always been pushed as a feature that improves teamwork, but in reality I don’t feel it promotes playing as a team all that much. It does promote giving things to your team mates, but as for playing together it does nothing. My initial post exists because I doubt there will be a thread about dropweapon + TDM at any point and this looked like a good candidate for slotting it in.

^To take this point a little further. Irregardless of drop weapon or not, if two players meet and then play together team play is occurring. It does not matter if a player drops a weapon or not as you are still playing together assisting each other. This idea and decisions surrounding it is what teamplay is at its core. The simple act of dropping a gun? Not teamplay. The dropping of medpacks in other games? Not team play. The player with the enforcer should probably play near the other team mate anyway, regardless of what is dropped for them.

*this makes TDM sound very +forward and cessy as it implies that players must always be pressuring the opposing team. I don’t think that is a completely accurate representation of how any iteration of ut has played.


conX5since you won’t have the option of doubling its firepower through teammate interaction.

Of course you have this option. Two players can play together with enforcers. Double firepower? Check. Teammate interaction? Check, to a much higher degree than simply dropping it for someone else 🙂


tubers and potatoes

Thought I would keep this feedback private as it is not super relevant and probably a bit verbose for the main feedback thread. I’m not even sure it is useful..

[QUOTE=Clawfist;183492]The thing in CS is, however, that one side will always give up a round if both teams were locked in inaction. Since you have the additional asymmetrical win condition outside of kills there is automatically a drive there, if you don’t attempt to do xyz you lose. Plus in a regular match you get the added bonus of attack/defense dynamics shifting on the fly for both teams which is nice.[/QUOTE]

As long as there is an odd number of vials or odd number of vial groups one player will be “ahead”. On ASDF if players split belt and jacket+pads and one gets vials, they will be +1. On solo there are 10 vials in 3/3/4? In order to “tie” each player needs to pickup one lot of three then half of the remaining vials – unlikely to occur. On these maps someone will be ahead.

On deck there are four groups of four vials, so a “tie” will occur if both players manage to take two groups. On tuba there are no vials so neither player has any advantage until damage is taken.

Without vials I was assuming that at some point, even with the current setup, someone will deal damage and have the advantage. At which point the other player has to do something. I agree that if noone deals any damage and there are no vials/keg on the map there may be a problem..

Does it currently use total health+armor or just health for deciding the winner? If the player health (not total stack) is used additional importance (regardless of a maps armor loadout) could be pushed onto vials as players can secure early “advantage”. This would be especially true when vials are not on route to weapons. A player going out of their way early to get the vials on deck near pulse and ripper for example would be possibly giving up other weapons, ammo, pickups to do so.

Side idea: Rather than a HUD element to denote lead use a player based, through floor flag-carrier style glow, this also assists with aggressive play from the player not in the lead.

[QUOTE=Clawfist;183492]
I still feel like map style is missing a bit from the currently ongoing discussion. I.e. defensiveness is not nearly as much of an issue on Tuba vs Solo. Same with armor stack(s) – yes one person might get a 100 armor bump, but they had to give up something else that’s powerful in return. [/QUOTE]

I’ve played 20-30 Showdown games. About half would have been on ASDF, the rest split relatively evenly between solo, deck and tuba. A lot of my prattle on this particular topic is based on playing ut99 duel with instant armor spawns, which is similar in many ways, exception is players are setting up for the rest of the game/next spawn rather than the next few minutes.

Giving things up applies on asdf and solo as well. It applies to any map. 200 starting health + ammo restriction makes going for weapons ahead of armor a viable option. Ignoring the current item layouts, a similar situation could be engineered on asdf by swapping out the belt for amp. Not the same exactly because of boots, option for self damage and whatnot, but jacket vs amp is still there.

My qualms with the [URL=”http://arenafps.com/ut99-duel-ut4-now/#amp”]amp in duel[/URL] don’t apply to showdown. The “run away for duration” in SD is interesting and allows the amped player to possibly take more other resources because of it. imo this adds to the gametype for the very reason it detracts from duel. Alternatively the boot player could save charges to try to use it later for aggressive pushes.

Each section on tuba feels like a small arena where different style fights can occur, which is fun and surely spectator friendly. Having said that the boots are abusive and in conjunction with the big tower are somewhat offensive in the current incarnation of SD. Not to say a map like tuba could never work, but if the option to go up on the tower is there then it will be abused in competitive to win and in lower level games because “it is fun”. For one party only. The same applies to the rocks above flak and another, further out rock if one player has both the shock and sniper.

As far as tuba being less defensive I would have to disagree. Unless maps are designed like 1v1 RA arenas the later section of the game will be +back heavy irrespective of the map. Get flak, shock or rockets. Go to any of number of strong points* after most pickups are gone and wait. For close in defense anyway.

Tuba has a “feature” that the other maps do no emphasis as much. Long range. On tuba a player can get shock + rifle (probably using boots) and after most other pickups are gone hang around the boot island. If they can sweep mini too their opponent has no way of effectively pressuring them. If they have boots they can opt to wait. From a showdown perspective with a map like this I think having both the sniper and shock located so closely is not ideal. Make the boot player spend more time getting the sniper. having two health packs where the player can hang out may also be less than ideal, however the player doesn’t need

*For tuba: Health above mini/looking down to jacket, rocket side of the bio room with the health pack, top of flak ramp, bottom of either lift provided you position yourself to be difficult to approach from above.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bg6neou9sAo&index=5&list=PLmREtI5vnFs4hSJqPINPb5nb1NQ73rOSu[/url] – first 2:30 or so for the idea of strong points.

While the map and pickups obviously influence how the game plays, I don’t think the map alone can solve all sd. ASDF is good, followed by tuba. Deck plays weird (might be duel experience talking) but the amp seems to work better here than tuba and while I like solo for duel I dislike it for sd.

To be honest the small, “1v1” maps that shipped with 2k3/4 (can’t remember which title) and were never really played would probably be fairly well suited to 1v1 SD.

[QUOTE=Clawfist;183492]
Hence the actually interesting part of spawn choice and run plan at the beginning of a round vs endless circling in an emptied out Solo which allows plenty of avoidance one the map is void of resources and there are no more locational motivators besides evasion.
[/QUOTE]

Your points about tuba being more iconic, watchable and spec friendly are spot on. With this in mind its understandable why you guys want tuba played.

Spawn choice/run plan is as important on asdf, solo and deck. Realistically it is important on every map for SD. If you want specific items you need to plan. If you want to play aggressively you need to do it as early as possible to obtain more.. stuff. At the risk of sounding like a broken record early aggression when items are still up will be important (even if players are not doing this yet). Having jacket play off against boots/amp is not much different to belt vs jacket/pads on the other maps. Both players get a beneficial item.

From your other post:

[I]- Everything either has very long travel telegraphs or is visible from a variety of spots[/I]

To me this just means rifle/shock primary is buffed. Contesting pickups only occurs at the start of the game, it doesn’t really matter that I can see my opponent pick up the jacket since I can hear it from anywhere almost. With competent players I don’t even need to see or hear the pickup, if ~10 seconds have elapsed and I have not been near it/near the other player you can almost guarantee it has been taken. Players don’t need the pickup time because they will never revisit the item, so being able to see it from long range is unimportant for that. The longer travel times and less audio queues from your opponent due to distance make initial aggression harder. As previously noted if a player has boots, shock, sniper they can sit out on the boot island and plink away at their opponent. Maybe the mini can contest but its not a sure thing by any means. Because this is essentially a hard counter it is possibly less interesting than a stand off on asdf.

It is different but I don’t know if it offers much more to SD than just being different – which is fine.

[I]- Takes either 2 charges of boots or lots of travel and one boot charge or weapon self damage to reach / You most likely don’t want to pick it up straight away either unless you already have shock[/I]
Mini spawn is pretty safe to go amp. Listen on spawn for where the other dude is (either shock pickup, water noise or some other pickup towards rocket/flak), if he is not at shock you are safe to hammer. However this will change when the spawn map is implemented as you will know exactly where they are.

[I]- boots being pretty powerful in this map and allowing you faster access to all the other bigger pickups [/I]
With the way tuba is setup currently the boots main purpose is to get sniper + amp quickly from the lower spawns. And escape if/when attacked later.

[I]- There’s only one armor pickup (chest) – This wouldn’t work well if it only had a belt since that (IMO) only works when there is a counter option (at least another chest) – It only being chest armor makes it an actul interesting choice but not an obligation (i.e. boots or armor, 99% of the time not both)
[/I]

If the jacket is ok vs 200 health opponent (200v300) then the counter option requirement for belt is pads (250v350)? Maybe I misinterpreted what you mean.

[B]Opening[/B]

A big part of this gametype is the start. Epic are assigning quite a lot of weight to it and it is an aspect of ut99 duel that I enjoy which is sadly less relevant in later titles. The problem is that this can be very fixed, especially for 1v1. It becomes even more so once map spawn selection is introduced as the degree of uncertainty is reduced.

[url]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3mmwI6lhy8[/url] Jump to ~7:20. Most duel games open like showdown, the exception is players use the resources for the next point of conflict – the first round of spawns.

My fear is starts, while interesting now, are something that can be min-maxed easily in a similar manner to ql openings.

However team openings will be amazing. So looking forward to TSD.