🚀 go-pugleaf

On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 19:21:32 -0800, GTD <Stoooopid@duuuh.net> wrote:

>Folk wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 21:23:50 -0700, "goPostal"
>> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>> "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:918kc3lj5ftiiegohabal23d7v776tk5jf@4ax.com...
>>>> On Mon, 20 Aug 2007 15:55:29 -0700, "goPostal"
>>>> <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> "Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:prjjc31rhbi8qhlgqn2es56t0gir6iel2n@4ax.com...
>>>>>> I was lucky enough to read that article as well.  The nodes stuff is
>>>>>> just a carry-over from ONS.  The orb is new and sounds like it might
>>>>>> help with the end-of-game stalemates often seen in ONS.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The "defenders" and "attackers" stuff has more to do with the single
>>>>>> player campaign than with online multiplayer.
>>>>> Thanks for clarifying. I had to read it (the original article) rather
>>>>> quickly. I guess the single player is going to get a good treatment this
>>>>> time too.
>>>> According to Epic, half of the people that bought UT2004 didn't go
>>>> online.  They base this on the fact that they know how many ID's are
>>>> out there and they can tell when they go online since a player has to
>>>> go through the master server first.  (I guess they didn't consider the
>>>> number of people who installed it, hated it, uninstalled it and didn't
>>>> bother to go online).  Anyway, due to this "fact", they've decided to
>>>> really beef up the single player campaign.  So instead of a ladder
>>>> like in the previous versions, there is more of a storyline... kind of
>>>> like with Gears of War.
>>> Does 50% really sound right to you? Most anyone who plays FPS knows that the 
>>> single player ladder in UT2004 is nothing more than an extended training 
>>> session for online play. I would think there would be a percentage of 
>>> "impulse buys" of people who don't know the game, but half? I dunno. Just 
>>> seems wrong.
>>> Maybe it's one guy putting multiple copies on a college LAN or the pirate 
>>> servers, though I tend to think if someone knows how to pirate a server 
>>> without a key check, downloading a copy is almost a given. I just don't see 
>>> half the copies not getting online. 
>> 
>> Neither does anyone else I've talked to.  Either Epic's data is
>> flawed, or they have some other reason to make up this story.
>
>We have 3 copies: Mine, my kid's, and the one on my laptop for whoever 
>else wants to play, , none of them are really ever played online. I have 
>a few friends with the game, and we play by lan sometimes, but when just 
>about any of us play online, it's counter-strike. My kid has tried, he 
>plays online for about 2 minutes and switches to CSS. there are alot of 
>people out there making UT online play suck. The whole spastic 
>jumping/walldodge crap is the biggest annoyance to me. It becomes about 
>who knows the maps and where the health and weapons are in them, and who 
>can jump around the most.

TBH, that kind of lends credence to what Steve Polge from Epic was
saying... ego prevents many people from playing online.  IOW, people
get owned so much by skilled players that they end up playing offline.

FWIW, the player movement has supposedly been toned down quite a bit
in UT3.  But OTOH, the Warfare gametype has been beefed up so much
that it will probably take a serious investment in time to become
proficient... not unlike ONS.  So yeah... map knowledge will still be
a big part of being a proficient online player.  But isn't that true
of most multiplayer games?  Or have many of them devolved into "hide
and snipe" type of games?