🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <nvi8d3pd2gtmhnk2se60dutvdq3d1r05o7@4ax.com>, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>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.
>
There needs to be some sort of skills matching utility inside of unreal to 
match likecapable persons up with eachother.




>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?