🚀 go-pugleaf

On 15 Aug 2007 23:53:04 GMT, Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com>
wrote:

>Fighting in an air vehicle vs. the same kind of vehicle. 
>
>1) in raptors it's impossible to hit each other with missiles if both 
>drivers know what they're doing, and you're unlikely to hit much with 
>the primary fire, so you just circle around shooting fruitlessly. 
>Then someone decides to go do something useful, but unfortunately the 
>first person to leave the dogfight usually gets hit with a missile or 
>two.
>
>In Torlan this situation sometimes arises at the start of the game. 
>Often I try to maneuver myself over the tower and jump out and shoot 
>with the shock rifle (assuming there's a deemer there).
>
>2) there's nothing stupider than two mantas fighting each other. 
>Takes forever and ends up being a waste of everyone's time. If I 
>really need to kill a manta I'll jump out and use other weapons. 
>Otherwise I'll just ignore the manta and go to where I'm needed.
>
>3) two cicadas is probably the most frustrating fight, because they 
>can't maintain the height they can achieve, so both cicadas bob up 
>and down like corks. You can only shoot the other cicada when you're 
>above him, so you spend a lot of time just banging on the spacebar 
>and cursing.
>
>Thoughts?

Wait for UT3?  <g>

Supposedly they have tweaked some speed and maneuverability features
in some of the vehicles. 

But for the current game:

1)  Agreed.  You're probably better off trying to use primary fire
instead of missiles.  For missile avoidance, try to keep moving in a
linear fashion.  Once you stall, you're toast.  If the other pilot
isn't that good, keep firing missiles on him because he will either
stall or run into something which makes him a sitting duck.

2)  You've got the right idea.  It's best to just jump out and hit him
with a hit-scan weapon.  Unless he's already taken a lot of damage
(vehicle is smoking)... then I would go ahead and try to take him out
with primary fire.

3)  I avoid maps with Cicada.  <g>

There are going to be no less than *** 18 *** freaking vehicles in
UT3, so I guess we will need a broader skill set than what we have
now.  Here's the list as it currently stands:

****************************************************************************************
Axon
Scorpion - The primary fire shoots electrified bouncing balls that
explode on contact. These are particularly effective against other
vehicles. The vehicle can also be turned into a bomb, and sent on a
kamikaze mission. You can eject from the Scorpion when using it in
this manner. 

Hellbender - The new rendition of the hellbender places the driver in
control over the Skymine Turret. Nothing else has changed aside from
visuals. It is also said to be faster.

Manta - In addition to a visual update, players will no longer be able
to ride on top of the side fans, but will be sucked down and gibbed.
It is also said to be faster.

Raptor - Not much is currently known, but this vehicle has had a
massive visual overhaul. It has a faster turning radius now.

Cicada - Not much known.

Paladin - Not much known. Faster.

SPMA - The controller have been changed to allow mouse targeting
instead of using keyboard directional buttons. A second player can man
the Skymine Turret. 

Goliath - The primary fire fires a powerful tank shell. The secondary
fires a wide area shell specialized for anti-infantry use. It is said
to have better handling.

Leviathan - This mobile fortress still features its main cannon and
has added distinct weapon fire to each of its four turrets rather than
UT2004's link-like projectile. Each turret also has an alternate
shield function. 


****************************************************************************************
Necris
Viper(Scorpion/ Manta Equivalent) - A single passenger speeder. The
primary gun fires projectiles that bounce off walls. The vehicle can
also spread out like a real life viper to hover high in the sky. Like
the Scorpion, it can be used on kamikaze missions. 

Scavenger(Scorpion/ Manta Equivalent) - It has an energy field
encasing the body it can use to roll at high speeds. It can extend
it's legs to walk up hills or jump. It's arsenal includes using it's
legs as spinning blades that revolve around the body and exploding
energy clusters.

Nemesis(Hellbender Equivalent) - The nemesis features an instant hit
twin laser beam with zoom. The vehicle also supports different modes.
When you crouch down the vehicle moves faster at a cost to your weapon
effectiveness. You can also rise up to attack, but this makes you more
of a target. 

Fury(Rapter Equivalent) - The fury is a high speed flying vehicle that
specializes in shooting down other air units. This vehicle can dodge,
allowing you to barrel roll out of the way. 

Darkwalker(Tank Equivalent) - This lumbering tripod has tendril-like
legs that allow them to climb a wider variety of terrain compared to
other vehicles. The primary weapon is an extremely powerful twin laser
beam that shoots out a line of plasma. The secondary fire "screams"
knocking players off their feet. The vehicle also features a secondary
gunner position. 

Cicada Equivalent - ???

SPMA Equivalent - ???

Paladin Equivalent - ??? 

Leviathan Equivalent - ??? 


****************************************************************************************
Extra stuff.
Stealthbender - A Necrified Hellbender. This stealth-based vehicle is
100% invisible when not moving, has a red outline when moving, and it
100% visible when laying deployables. It has 4 deployable available
which are the spider mine trap, the slow volume trap, infantry
teleporter stations, and one yet to be announced. It is unknown if
this vehicle will appear in any multiplayer maps, but it is most
likely a single player vehicle. 

Turrets - Turrets now have limited mobility. They will have a rails
that will allow them to slide to new positions to help cover wider
angles. There are a few different turret designs planned.

Hoverboard - Designed to allow infantry to get to where they're needed
sooner. There will be a laser tether available to attach to faster
moving vehicles. Someone will fall to the ground if they are shot once
or land after jumping from a high place while on the hoverboard. You
can also do silly tricks. 


****************************************************************************************

ONS is already tough on noobs due to the learning curve.  I hope the
addition of all this extra 'stuff' doesn't make it an even bigger
problem.

Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote in news:h1v8c39pcerroikdrra1j7ct30hvc1rdr1@
4ax.com:

> ONS is already tough on noobs due to the learning curve.  I hope the
> addition of all this extra 'stuff' doesn't make it an even bigger
> problem.

Yeah, public servers will probably be a mess.

But it all sounds pretty awesome to me. I might have to join a clan 
again to find some real teamwork.

-Tuber

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:h1v8c39pcerroikdrra1j7ct30hvc1rdr1@4ax.com...
> On 15 Aug 2007 23:53:04 GMT, Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Fighting in an air vehicle vs. the same kind of vehicle.
>>


Great post Folk! Good reading there and it should answer a lot of questions. 
You might even consider a repost under a better thread title for the people 
who will no doubt begin to wander in soon. 

On 16 Aug 2007 11:44:02 -0500, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:

>There are going to be no less than *** 18 *** freaking vehicles in
>UT3,

Thrilling. More choice for idiots.

"Huh" <10@0.0.10> wrote in message 
news:65rac31p5orhsmg8fp555u4ih14rbqq7gi@4ax.com...
> On 16 Aug 2007 11:44:02 -0500, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>
>>There are going to be no less than *** 18 *** freaking vehicles in
>>UT3,
>
> Thrilling. More choice for idiots.
>

Although I don't share your extreme outlook I see your point. There is 
already a large selection of weapons and the popularity of sniper only 
servers and instagib seems to say that this is not what a large group of the 
community wants. Kind of like BF2142. Great game, nice graphics. Too many 
vehicles and weapons and classes. 

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 16:39:42 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
>news:h1v8c39pcerroikdrra1j7ct30hvc1rdr1@4ax.com...
>> On 15 Aug 2007 23:53:04 GMT, Daniel Damouth <damouth@san.rr.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Fighting in an air vehicle vs. the same kind of vehicle.
>>>
>
>
>Great post Folk! Good reading there and it should answer a lot of questions. 
>You might even consider a repost under a better thread title for the people 
>who will no doubt begin to wander in soon. 

I reckon when the demo hits there will be umpteen web sites with all
the low-down.  What I posted was ripped from another forum, which was
ripped from a magazine article that will be published soon.

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:40:23 +0100, Huh <10@0.0.10> wrote:

>On 16 Aug 2007 11:44:02 -0500, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>
>>There are going to be no less than *** 18 *** freaking vehicles in
>>UT3,
>
>Thrilling. More choice for idiots.

At least with hoverboards, when the idiots and noobs steal all the
good vehicles, there will still be a way to get where you're going.
And if you're quick, you can grapple onto them as they speed away.
Assuming that they're going somewhere that you would want to follow,
that is.  ;-)

I'm looking forward to hoverboards.  With ONS, I find myself suiciding
a *lot* because I'm out-of-place on the map and suiciding is the best
way to get somewhere useful.  But if you've got full health, shield
and some decent weapons, it's a bitch to suicide and lose all that.
The hoverboard solves that to some degree, but that fact that you're
completely vulnerable (can't shoot anyone while you're on a hoverboard
and one tiny shot or fragment from any weapon sends you tumbling off)
presents additional problems.

As for the 18 vehicles... if I understand it correctly, matches can be
set up so that it's Axon on Axon or Necris on Necris, so the vehicle
count will be halved.  And all vehicles will not be represented on
every map.  They will be included as map characteristics dictate, just
as you see few ONS maps that have the Leviathan, for instance.

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:bq1hc3lvgrkvrtm7hbuc0ug0cdp0hhbb89@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:40:23 +0100, Huh <10@0.0.10> wrote:
>
>>On 16 Aug 2007 11:44:02 -0500, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>>
>>>There are going to be no less than *** 18 *** freaking vehicles in
>>>UT3,
>>
>>Thrilling. More choice for idiots.
>
> At least with hoverboards, when the idiots and noobs steal all the
> good vehicles, there will still be a way to get where you're going.
> And if you're quick, you can grapple onto them as they speed away.
> Assuming that they're going somewhere that you would want to follow,
> that is.  ;-)
>
> I'm looking forward to hoverboards.  With ONS, I find myself suiciding
> a *lot* because I'm out-of-place on the map and suiciding is the best
> way to get somewhere useful.  But if you've got full health, shield
> and some decent weapons, it's a bitch to suicide and lose all that.
> The hoverboard solves that to some degree, but that fact that you're
> completely vulnerable (can't shoot anyone while you're on a hoverboard
> and one tiny shot or fragment from any weapon sends you tumbling off)
> presents additional problems.
>
> As for the 18 vehicles... if I understand it correctly, matches can be
> set up so that it's Axon on Axon or Necris on Necris, so the vehicle
> count will be halved.  And all vehicles will not be represented on
> every map.  They will be included as map characteristics dictate, just
> as you see few ONS maps that have the Leviathan, for instance.

There is a nice article in the new PCGamer mag coming out. It's not on 
shelves yet but a customer of mine gets early copies. I scanned the couple 
of pages and it talked a lot about "warfare" and how it was going to work. 
Each side starts with a home base and there are "nodes" you have to connect. 
The farther you get away from home the longer reinforcements take to get 
there. Also there was something about an "orb carrier". One person on each 
side carries an orb that facilitates much quicker node building but is shown 
openly to the other team by a beacon so they cannot hide and are easily 
found.
Also there are options to choose classes at the start of a warfare match. 
"Defenders" will have arrows pointing them to where to defend (AI deciding 
that? IDK.) Attackers will have arrows showing which way to the next node. 
There was more but I didn't have time to scan the article, just read it 
quickly.
I guess this PCG guy was the first press to be able to play and he was quite 
impressed. The accompanying in-game screenies were really sweet too. 

On Sun, 19 Aug 2007 14:01:04 -0700, "goPostal"
<agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
>news:bq1hc3lvgrkvrtm7hbuc0ug0cdp0hhbb89@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 10:40:23 +0100, Huh <10@0.0.10> wrote:
>>
>>>On 16 Aug 2007 11:44:02 -0500, Folk <Folk@folk.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>There are going to be no less than *** 18 *** freaking vehicles in
>>>>UT3,
>>>
>>>Thrilling. More choice for idiots.
>>
>> At least with hoverboards, when the idiots and noobs steal all the
>> good vehicles, there will still be a way to get where you're going.
>> And if you're quick, you can grapple onto them as they speed away.
>> Assuming that they're going somewhere that you would want to follow,
>> that is.  ;-)
>>
>> I'm looking forward to hoverboards.  With ONS, I find myself suiciding
>> a *lot* because I'm out-of-place on the map and suiciding is the best
>> way to get somewhere useful.  But if you've got full health, shield
>> and some decent weapons, it's a bitch to suicide and lose all that.
>> The hoverboard solves that to some degree, but that fact that you're
>> completely vulnerable (can't shoot anyone while you're on a hoverboard
>> and one tiny shot or fragment from any weapon sends you tumbling off)
>> presents additional problems.
>>
>> As for the 18 vehicles... if I understand it correctly, matches can be
>> set up so that it's Axon on Axon or Necris on Necris, so the vehicle
>> count will be halved.  And all vehicles will not be represented on
>> every map.  They will be included as map characteristics dictate, just
>> as you see few ONS maps that have the Leviathan, for instance.
>
>There is a nice article in the new PCGamer mag coming out. It's not on 
>shelves yet but a customer of mine gets early copies. I scanned the couple 
>of pages and it talked a lot about "warfare" and how it was going to work. 
>Each side starts with a home base and there are "nodes" you have to connect. 
>The farther you get away from home the longer reinforcements take to get 
>there. Also there was something about an "orb carrier". One person on each 
>side carries an orb that facilitates much quicker node building but is shown 
>openly to the other team by a beacon so they cannot hide and are easily 
>found.
>Also there are options to choose classes at the start of a warfare match. 
>"Defenders" will have arrows pointing them to where to defend (AI deciding 
>that? IDK.) Attackers will have arrows showing which way to the next node. 
>There was more but I didn't have time to scan the article, just read it 
>quickly.
>I guess this PCG guy was the first press to be able to play and he was quite 
>impressed. The accompanying in-game screenies were really sweet too. 

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.

"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. 

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.

"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. 

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.

"Folk" <Folk@folk.com> wrote in message 
news:7m8mc39s4qnsi523rlgo1te8j4n4s1emlj@4ax.com...
> 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.

OOOooo...a conspiracy.....Nothing like a good conspiracy!  :P 

Daniel Damouth wrote:
> Fighting in an air vehicle vs. the same kind of vehicle. 

All the more reason to scrap the stock vecs and make your own.

GTD <Stoooopid@duuuh.net> wrote in 
news:13cusha9i9a8k1b@corp.supernews.com:

> Daniel Damouth wrote:
>> Fighting in an air vehicle vs. the same kind of vehicle. 
> 
> All the more reason to scrap the stock vecs and make your own.

I know it's not a flight sim, but in UT3 I'd like an air vehicle that's 
fun to dogfight in.  Heck, they could throw in a sub, too.

-Tuber

On a pleasant day while strolling in 
alt.games.unreal.tournament, a person by the name of 
Daniel Damouth exclaimed:
> I know it's not a flight sim, but in UT3 I'd like an air vehicle that's 
> fun to dogfight in. 

Wouldn't that have the  same issue as Battlefield - the 
maps are too small for planes? 

-- 
aaronl at consultant dot com 
For every expert, there is an equal and 
opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke

Aaron Lawrence wrote:
> On a pleasant day while strolling in 
> alt.games.unreal.tournament, a person by the name of 
> Daniel Damouth exclaimed:
>> I know it's not a flight sim, but in UT3 I'd like an air vehicle that's 
>> fun to dogfight in. 
> 
> Wouldn't that have the  same issue as Battlefield - the 
> maps are too small for planes? 
> 
That's largely because the planes are too fast in BF, because they made 
them un-unreal :)

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.

"GTD" <Stoooopid@duuuh.net> wrote in message 
news:13d755nqftu2k30@corp.supernews.com...
> 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.

Spastic. I like that. Pretty much sums it up. Lately all I've been playing 
is vehicle assault. The controls aren't really given to fine motor control 
of the autos but at least there is a certain team concept behind the games. 
Plus any lamers, teamkillers or spawnkillers get bounced pretty quick. 

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?

On Tuesday 28 August 2007 05:21 GTD wrote:

> 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.

I'm glad your kid went, it is better he goes back to his CS crowd.
Whenever a kid from CS enters UT he's whining or laming. They just
don't have the character and perseverance to learn a game fully.

Once you *learn* the game, like any sport or endeavour, it will be
huge fun. There is nothing spastic about jumping/dodging, it is a
new verstatile way of moving around that makes the game less
predictable and less machine-like. 

And map-knowledgde, yeah right. What's wrong with that. Or is it
the fact that you need to invest maybe more than 10 minutes te
learn something?

I never played UT off-line. I never play any off-line games anymore
except to check the maps and the agility before going online.
Can't even imagine playing against a computer again. Sheez, so
boring.

Ursa..

Major Ursa wrote:
> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 05:21 GTD wrote:
> 
>> 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.
> 
> I'm glad your kid went, it is better he goes back to his CS crowd.
> Whenever a kid from CS enters UT he's whining or laming. They just
> don't have the character and perseverance to learn a game fully.
You really don't know my kid then.

> 
> Once you *learn* the game, like any sport or endeavour, it will be
> huge fun. There is nothing spastic about jumping/dodging, it is a
> new verstatile way of moving around that makes the game less
> predictable and less machine-like. 
You're trying to project that we should like it better because YOU like 
it better. The jumping/dodging IS spastic, and like I said, it's just 
taken over the purpose of the game. You don't have to agree with me, but 
you're not going to convince me otherwise.

> 
> And map-knowledgde, yeah right. What's wrong with that. Or is it
> the fact that you need to invest maybe more than 10 minutes te
> learn something?
Calm down, you don't have to get all high-and-mighty. Jees.

> 
> I never played UT off-line. I never play any off-line games anymore
> except to check the maps and the agility before going online.
> Can't even imagine playing against a computer again. Sheez, so
> boring.
> 
> Ursa..
> 


It's the elitist mentality of your whole post that drives people away. 
I'm not sure why you even bothered to respond, except to let the world 
know that you like the game and think little of those that don't.

"GTD" <Stoooopid@duuuh.net> wrote in message 
news:13d9e1129vhd2aa@corp.supernews.com...
> Major Ursa wrote:
>> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 05:21 GTD wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> I'm glad your kid went, it is better he goes back to his CS crowd.
>> Whenever a kid from CS enters UT he's whining or laming. They just
>> don't have the character and perseverance to learn a game fully.
> You really don't know my kid then.
>
>>
>> Once you *learn* the game, like any sport or endeavour, it will be
>> huge fun. There is nothing spastic about jumping/dodging, it is a
>> new verstatile way of moving around that makes the game less
>> predictable and less machine-like.
> You're trying to project that we should like it better because YOU like it 
> better. The jumping/dodging IS spastic, and like I said, it's just taken 
> over the purpose of the game. You don't have to agree with me, but you're 
> not going to convince me otherwise.
>
>>
>> And map-knowledgde, yeah right. What's wrong with that. Or is it
>> the fact that you need to invest maybe more than 10 minutes te
>> learn something?
> Calm down, you don't have to get all high-and-mighty. Jees.
>
>>
>> I never played UT off-line. I never play any off-line games anymore
>> except to check the maps and the agility before going online.
>> Can't even imagine playing against a computer again. Sheez, so
>> boring.
>>
>> Ursa..
>>
>
>
> It's the elitist mentality of your whole post that drives people away. I'm 
> not sure why you even bothered to respond, except to let the world know 
> that you like the game and think little of those that don't.

He's entitled to his opinion, even though I don't share it either.

DM matches have turned into a bunny-hopping jump-dodging festival. What 
happens is the skill level is replaced by keybinding and speed apps that do 
the movement at superhuman speed. When I first saw the wall-dodge video that 
hit before 2K3's launch I thought it was a bad idea. It's not a gymnastics 
sim. All that excess movement coupled with the extended jump range and 
lowered gravity and inertia made everything seem, well, unreal. 

goPostal wrote:
> "GTD" <Stoooopid@duuuh.net> wrote in message 
> news:13d9e1129vhd2aa@corp.supernews.com...
>> Major Ursa wrote:
>>> On Tuesday 28 August 2007 05:21 GTD wrote:
>>>
>>>> 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.
>>> I'm glad your kid went, it is better he goes back to his CS crowd.
>>> Whenever a kid from CS enters UT he's whining or laming. They just
>>> don't have the character and perseverance to learn a game fully.
>> You really don't know my kid then.
>>
>>> Once you *learn* the game, like any sport or endeavour, it will be
>>> huge fun. There is nothing spastic about jumping/dodging, it is a
>>> new verstatile way of moving around that makes the game less
>>> predictable and less machine-like.
>> You're trying to project that we should like it better because YOU like it 
>> better. The jumping/dodging IS spastic, and like I said, it's just taken 
>> over the purpose of the game. You don't have to agree with me, but you're 
>> not going to convince me otherwise.
>>
>>> And map-knowledgde, yeah right. What's wrong with that. Or is it
>>> the fact that you need to invest maybe more than 10 minutes te
>>> learn something?
>> Calm down, you don't have to get all high-and-mighty. Jees.
>>
>>> I never played UT off-line. I never play any off-line games anymore
>>> except to check the maps and the agility before going online.
>>> Can't even imagine playing against a computer again. Sheez, so
>>> boring.
>>>
>>> Ursa..
>>>
>>
>> It's the elitist mentality of your whole post that drives people away. I'm 
>> not sure why you even bothered to respond, except to let the world know 
>> that you like the game and think little of those that don't.
> 
> He's entitled to his opinion, even though I don't share it either.

True, I wasn't trying to say he/she shouldn't be allowed to post, it's 
just the the post was pretty much pointless. I equate it as about on the 
same level as if someone just went around and posted "yoo ar dum" as a 
reply to every post they see. It was rather pointless. . . I hope the 
poster realizes that the person they're talking trash to might be a 
modder, , or might decide to NOT be a modder. I Mod for UT2004, and 
don't for CS:S just because of too many CS:S pricks that made me not 
want to waste my time and effort on a game full of assholes. Somehow, it 
seems CS:S babies have mostly grown up.

> 
> DM matches have turned into a bunny-hopping jump-dodging festival. What 
> happens is the skill level is replaced by keybinding and speed apps that do 
> the movement at superhuman speed. When I first saw the wall-dodge video that 
> hit before 2K3's launch I thought it was a bad idea. It's not a gymnastics 
> sim. All that excess movement coupled with the extended jump range and 
> lowered gravity and inertia made everything seem, well, unreal. 
> 
That's exactly what I was getting at. You see some players, you KNOW 
they have some auto-jump crap going on. You can tell because their jumps 
are SO consistent, even when they NEED to jump up onto something, they 
mis-time the jump UP, because it didn't sync with their jumping rhythm. 
A real person would have pause or whatever to make the timing for jump 
up correct. I understand that the name of the game is Unreal 
(literally), but it's just so stupid looking and seems so stupid. I 
understand the about jumping and dodging, but to be able to do so 
constantly, and so excessively, is just retarded.

"GTD" <Stoooopid@duuuh.net> wrote in message 
news:13d9tus5mnq4kb0@corp.supernews.com...
> That's exactly what I was getting at. You see some players, you KNOW they 
> have some auto-jump crap going on. You can tell because their jumps are SO 
> consistent, even when they NEED to jump up onto something, they mis-time 
> the jump UP, because it didn't sync with their jumping rhythm. A real 
> person would have pause or whatever to make the timing for jump up 
> correct. I understand that the name of the game is Unreal (literally), but 
> it's just so stupid looking and seems so stupid. I understand the about 
> jumping and dodging, but to be able to do so constantly, and so 
> excessively, is just retarded.

On a positive note, it's good that the game is so interchangeable that other 
iterations can be found. I play mostly vehicle assault because there is very 
little DM type action and the majority of maps are devoid of flying 
vehicles, and little bit of sniper servers that frown on run-and-gun. At 
least this way I can play without bashing hell out of my keyboard like that 
German kid video  :) 

In article <_kNAi.140$fc6.82@newsfe04.lga>, "goPostal" <agutgopostal@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>"GTD" <Stoooopid@duuuh.net> wrote in message 
>news:13d755nqftu2k30@corp.supernews.com...
>> 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.
>
>Spastic. I like that. Pretty much sums it up. Lately all I've been playing 
>is vehicle assault. The controls aren't really given to fine motor control 
>of the autos but at least there is a certain team concept behind the games. 
>Plus any lamers, teamkillers or spawnkillers get bounced pretty quick. 
>
>

Yup, and with levels like INVASION, it has to be a team effort.

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?