pyrot3chnic
Veteran XX
now i do, hehIxiterra said:
Onslaught-style gametype fits the bill for a "large" gametype.
- Thread starter Zoolooman
- Start date
All this is imo 
Well it is probably mostly the map, but i would disagree that the concept is sound.
How many true, balanced and successful game types punish the the punished, DM your punishment is death (yes i know, lose weapons and all that but that sorta comes with death any way doesn't it?), they don't further punish you, not like you now run slower or anything.
CTF, your punishment is they get an extra point, this is the same with what ever the ball game that comes with ut2003/4 is called.
Assault its simply time, same with siege.
Some examples where they punish the punished are conquest in bf 1942 and onslaught. Both these can be a lot of fun but take Aberdeen in 1942 for example, which ever team gets the flags fastests gets a lot more vehicles and as such generally wins. Onslaught is the same, compiling your assets, winning through them rather than tactics or skill (well realistically its both, still not fair). Both these can be a lot of fun, but its also a lot more common to have a bad game here than say, CTF.
Now for onslaught to work, yes you do need to punish the punished or i guess have massively uneven teams, the concept is there for flawed. Which is probably where we disagree, i think you don't think there's anything wrong with this, I do.
In both my examples in my last post I don't think it would need to punish the punished, the first example you get much more dynamic fighting for points, as long as the teams aren't totally uneven.
In the second example defense will always naturally have a disadvantage, but as both teams play defense it doesn't matter, in some respects this could be the fairest of the lot.
Well it is probably mostly the map, but i would disagree that the concept is sound.
How many true, balanced and successful game types punish the the punished, DM your punishment is death (yes i know, lose weapons and all that but that sorta comes with death any way doesn't it?), they don't further punish you, not like you now run slower or anything.
CTF, your punishment is they get an extra point, this is the same with what ever the ball game that comes with ut2003/4 is called.
Assault its simply time, same with siege.
Some examples where they punish the punished are conquest in bf 1942 and onslaught. Both these can be a lot of fun but take Aberdeen in 1942 for example, which ever team gets the flags fastests gets a lot more vehicles and as such generally wins. Onslaught is the same, compiling your assets, winning through them rather than tactics or skill (well realistically its both, still not fair). Both these can be a lot of fun, but its also a lot more common to have a bad game here than say, CTF.
Now for onslaught to work, yes you do need to punish the punished or i guess have massively uneven teams, the concept is there for flawed. Which is probably where we disagree, i think you don't think there's anything wrong with this, I do.
In both my examples in my last post I don't think it would need to punish the punished, the first example you get much more dynamic fighting for points, as long as the teams aren't totally uneven.
In the second example defense will always naturally have a disadvantage, but as both teams play defense it doesn't matter, in some respects this could be the fairest of the lot.
I think we have the same analysis of the gametype, you just rather think that it is a failure of design and I think it is an acceptable setback.
Then again, an Assault or Siege style gametype also works fine.
The main things I'm looking at is a gametype in which vehicles and other resources matter. Siege/Assault tends to just be an indoor combat mess, while Onslaught/D&D - while gametypes that slide towards a win condition once one side gains an advantage - tend to use a bit of everything.
Good map design can handle a lot of the problem by allowing the main bases to supply everything the smaller points would supply - the main convenience of forward bases being forward spawn points and resource points.
Then again, an Assault or Siege style gametype also works fine.
The main things I'm looking at is a gametype in which vehicles and other resources matter. Siege/Assault tends to just be an indoor combat mess, while Onslaught/D&D - while gametypes that slide towards a win condition once one side gains an advantage - tend to use a bit of everything.
Good map design can handle a lot of the problem by allowing the main bases to supply everything the smaller points would supply - the main convenience of forward bases being forward spawn points and resource points.
Assets have to move with the spawns. You can't have all the good shit at the back base, save maybe a few powerful vehicles.
In BF1942, if you want a vehicle, you have to spawn at some backwater v-spawn point and drive it for 20 minutes to the front, supposing you dont get bombed 10 minutes in.
In BF1942, if you want a vehicle, you have to spawn at some backwater v-spawn point and drive it for 20 minutes to the front, supposing you dont get bombed 10 minutes in.
Sir Lucius
Veteran XX
ZenTseTse said:aren't you all the people who bitch, moan and flame when somebody talks about tribes2 gameplay, vehicles and anything with more than 16 people?
just checking...
good thread
Same people. T2 gameplay sucks. That doesn't mean all largescale fighting is bad. It's just bad for ctf.
I guess you can think of it as the more objectives there are, the easier it is to have fun with more people.
Phaseshift
Veteran XV
I can see how the map design would be really important. I think a game type like this could be really fun, it it was put together right. It seems combine the good aspects of so many differnt game types.
Phaseshift said:
it always comes down to maps... ctf, objectives, whatever.
how you spawn. how you get weaposn. the risk involved in controlling assets (real estate, access to spawns, access to vehicles, access to special weapons, etc). distances.
those are MAP elements, remember.
i assure you we'll see solid CTF with vehicles in ut2k4. folks can remain narrow minded about Tribes and vehicles all they want but it was done... done successfully... and will be done again, whether you want to play on those servers or not.
/me shrugs
but i prefer vehicles on objective-oriented gametypes myself as well.
CTF, to me, relies on old school ut/quake/tribes movement and lots of splash damage. they go together: big movements and splashy/projectile weapons.
without the choke points and dynamic movement, ctf starts to lose the tight dynamics which make it fun.
vehicles can certainly fit into that, but not if it's wide open free-for-all. etc, etc, etc.
i still think it's done very well on some tribes2 maps, that all said. but that's a rather tired debate... especially on THIS forum (where it is widely known among gamers that you can't expect an open-minded discussion on simple matters like this).
Please stop with the random insults thrown at this forum. Being open-minded does not mean accepting that every hair-brained opinion thrown at you is a good one, or even one worth considering.
Some T:V CTF maps will have vehicles. You jump to conclusions far too often when you imply that they won't.
When I made this thread, I was expressing the opinion that people wanted a gametype fun for large pubs; I realize that this is a gametype that many T2ers (and T1ers) enjoyed in a pub enviroment, and I perosonally would enjoy it as a break from the tight, intimate dynamic gameplay of a CTF game. Not every gametype needs to be designed for competition.
I disagree with the T2 lovers when it comes to actual competition design for a game such as CTF. But I do think that since all the elements for such a wargame are to be included, that a gametype suitable to the utilization of those elements should be created.
If you notice, this forum is quite open about reasonable considerations. But being open-minded is stupid when someone reccomends a complete revamp of the very basic premises of gametypes such as CTF. It's too late to consider this design to be one for a slow wargame. CTF will be fast and furious and action-heavy. But I still want to see a big, glorious massive gametype to fulfill that niche still left from the earliest days of Tribes 1.
I sincerely hope the developers want that gametype.
Some T:V CTF maps will have vehicles. You jump to conclusions far too often when you imply that they won't.
When I made this thread, I was expressing the opinion that people wanted a gametype fun for large pubs; I realize that this is a gametype that many T2ers (and T1ers) enjoyed in a pub enviroment, and I perosonally would enjoy it as a break from the tight, intimate dynamic gameplay of a CTF game. Not every gametype needs to be designed for competition.
I disagree with the T2 lovers when it comes to actual competition design for a game such as CTF. But I do think that since all the elements for such a wargame are to be included, that a gametype suitable to the utilization of those elements should be created.
If you notice, this forum is quite open about reasonable considerations. But being open-minded is stupid when someone reccomends a complete revamp of the very basic premises of gametypes such as CTF. It's too late to consider this design to be one for a slow wargame. CTF will be fast and furious and action-heavy. But I still want to see a big, glorious massive gametype to fulfill that niche still left from the earliest days of Tribes 1.
I sincerely hope the developers want that gametype.
Cea said:All this is imo
Well it is probably mostly the map, but i would disagree that the concept is sound.
How many true, balanced and successful game types punish the the punished, DM your punishment is death (yes i know, lose weapons and all that but that sorta comes with death any way doesn't it?), they don't further punish you, not like you now run slower or anything.
CTF, your punishment is they get an extra point, this is the same with what ever the ball game that comes with ut2003/4 is called.
Assault its simply time, same with siege.
Some examples where they punish the punished are conquest in bf 1942 and onslaught. Both these can be a lot of fun but take Aberdeen in 1942 for example, which ever team gets the flags fastests gets a lot more vehicles and as such generally wins. Onslaught is the same, compiling your assets, winning through them rather than tactics or skill (well realistically its both, still not fair). Both these can be a lot of fun, but its also a lot more common to have a bad game here than say, CTF.
Now for onslaught to work, yes you do need to punish the punished or i guess have massively uneven teams, the concept is there for flawed. Which is probably where we disagree, i think you don't think there's anything wrong with this, I do.
In both my examples in my last post I don't think it would need to punish the punished, the first example you get much more dynamic fighting for points, as long as the teams aren't totally uneven.
In the second example defense will always naturally have a disadvantage, but as both teams play defense it doesn't matter, in some respects this could be the fairest of the lot.
You can't compare the situation in bf1942 and ut2k4 to what we'd have in a tribes game.
By that logic, having your gens blown up by a HO shouldn't be allowed because you're "punishing" said team by taking away their turrets and inventories and making it harder for them to repair it.
You talk about punishing the losing side, but seriously, in tribes, what punishment would that be? You still have your armors and inventories at the main base, you still have your mobility and firepower, all you're missing would be some spawn points and perhaps some vehicles (which shouldn't present THAT much of an advantage anyways). In bf and ut, the vehicles are incredibly powerful, they offer greater mobility, and they can be very hard to kill/evade without vehicles of your own. If the focus on vehicles in T:V is lessened (and that's what seems to be the case so far, though we can't trust mister Thrax and his Web Of Lies
), I don't see how the losing team would be penalized (if they spawn closer to you, it also means that *you* spawn closer to *them*). It would still come down to the skill of the players attacking/defending each base, and not to who has the bigger tank.As Zooloo said, I think the concept is sound but it will still mostly depend on map design.
PyroTeknik said:You can't compare the situation in bf1942 and ut2k4 to what we'd have in a tribes game.
By that logic, having your gens blown up by a HO shouldn't be allowed because you're "punishing" said team by taking away their turrets and inventories and making it harder for them to repair it.
You talk about punishing the losing side, but seriously, in tribes, what punishment would that be? You still have your armors and inventories at the main base, you still have your mobility and firepower, all you're missing would be some spawn points and perhaps some vehicles (which shouldn't present THAT much of an advantage anyways). In bf and ut, the vehicles are incredibly powerful, they offer greater mobility, and they can be very hard to kill/evade without vehicles of your own. If the focus on vehicles in T:V is lessened (and that's what seems to be the case so far, though we can't trust mister Thrax and his Web Of Lies
As Zooloo said, I think the concept is sound but it will still mostly depend on map design.
I think the trend still needs to be recognized. It's possible to design maps that offer positive and negative feedback for teams progressing. Strong negative feedback for progress would be like having an easy-to-take middle-ground with an impenetrable fort for the tier between the middle and the goal. Strong positive feedback is where whichever team does better in the first five minutes typically wins the match, even if it involves an hour of slogging.
Zoolooman said:
they weren't random. sorry you feel that way
Zoolooman said:
when did i jump to conclusions about TV CTF?
epic has explicitly said ctf maps wont have vehicles. i wasnt talking about TV. i have no idea what, if any, vehicles will be in TV ctf.
Zoolooman said:
agreed. ironically, i can show you 50 cases where i and others get flamed for daring to say such a thing.
heck - nefilim, illy, and myself broke away from Legends for daring to say such things. indeed, i do find lots of fun irony in this
online gaming IS pubbing. tribes2 IS a pubbing game. SOME folks still resent that (and i might add that sierra people tend to stir up this debate themselves by focusing all their rhetoric on competition).
that said, i dont think it has to be either/or.
for a game to do well in competition, it first MUST be fun and exciting for pubbing (show me a counter example if you disagree). typically, competitor types simply need to tweak it a tad and agree on fair maps (i.e. fair terms of gameplay).
even now... open up All Seeing Eye and sort by # of players. even now, after most of the pubbing masses have moved on... one easily sees thta tribes2's action is like 90% on big ctf pubs (32+) and base (not classic) dominates. this flies in the face of the rhetoric one finds tolerated here.
<insert joke about statistics and real marketing data>
Zoolooman said:
Id say that there is fair criticism in saying that wide-open CTF (i.e. no choke points, etc) flies in the face of many gamers' sensibilities of what "good gameplay" is, but then again folks continue to enjoy it in mass.
i used to play a lot on the old Necrobones server (which spawned good competitive clans, i should add). for those who avoided t2 in those days or still now... there WERE hard core ctf matches which centered on shrikes. when you get a critical mass of shrike pilots who know how to play... maps gain another form of "choke hold" for both pedestrians and shrike cappers.
there IS a form of shrike-centered CTF which fits the ideals of CTF. the secret is in the sauce. i hope sierra and irrational are looking at the ingredients fairly.
cuz every other game developer is stealing the secrets of tribes2 while folks here insist it failed.
anybodyt from the old S|B clan or who played tribes2 with shrikes... at its finest... knows what im talking about. if TV doesnt harness THAT feeling as well as what we love from tribes1... it would be a shame.
Zoolooman said:
sugar coat it all you want, but this forum is driven by a clique mentality that attacks ideas against the grain. sorry, that's reality, whether you like "tsetse" saying it or not.
i continue to post here in spite of the flaming (which i find funny), simply because i both care and... find it entertaining. most people dont care enough to put up with the middle school teen politics and flaming.
ill say it 100 times again, because when i joined tribalwar last summer, colosus himself in IRC said this forum would be moderated and not be like normal.
i might add, zoolooman, in spite of the past... im not attacking you personally. i presume your more mellow, intelligent posts represent who you are. show me the same respect, since im actually agreeing with you. try it. you'll find once you stop lookin at "tsetse" as flame bait, things take on a new light when talking with me.
Zoolooman said:
i agree. it's never "too late" to get it right.
i'd go so far as to say 9/10 gamers expect something like this when they think of tribes. they do NOT think small, tight, quake-ish die hard dueling gameplay. they think of wide-open combat with vehicles and jetpacks.
i would still like to think TV will cover the whole range, with tight CTF designed along the classic choke points and dynamics we know and love (which goes beyond tribes).
i'd also like to see the fans get what they expect from a tribes game, with larger scale vehicle combat and some gametype which garners those expectations (id agree that objective-oriented gameplay is the best direction). calling thta "slow" doesnt make sense either. the language of "slow' and "fast" doesnt add up (btw, i drafted an article about mapping on that issue and could use feedback).
im confident in the Irrational team. i just hope they havent been told to back away on these kinds of ideas in order to fulfill the tribes1 diehard vision.
that would be a colossal mistake.
Last edited:
Hobbiticus
Veteran X
ZenTseTse said:heck - nefilim, illy, and myself broke away from Legends for daring to say such things. indeed, i do find lots of fun irony in this
Completely untrue. Nefilim is still around, I don't remember you EVER being involved with Legends, and illy broke away for very different reasons.
ZenTseTse - It's fine that you harbor the opinion TribalWar is a terrible place run by a clique mentality. Frankly though, you're posting here, and if you want to reduce the friction between you and this "clique", you shouldn't go sniping at it whenever you get the chance.
Being anti-social on the internet is rarely the fault of those around you, rather is it almost always a status you bestow upon yourself. I know because when the internet was young and Tribes just released (98) I used to troll forums as a hobby. I know for a fact that getting along isn't hard. You can hold the opposing opinion - it's when you get haughty that people begin to get angry.
Not to say people can't be haughty. When the force of their argument is *that strong* it is often fine to be an ass. Unfortunately, nobody considers your arguments *that strong* and it would serve you better to not insult Tribalwar and the posters at every chance you get.
I'm fine with discussing your opinions rationally, but please cease and desist slandering TW, no matter how much truth you believe your opinions represent. It just makes me want to flame you, rather than argue or debate your points. If someone posts saying, "WOW HOW STUPID!" just ignore it. If people want to debate with you, they'll debate through such white noise.
Being anti-social on the internet is rarely the fault of those around you, rather is it almost always a status you bestow upon yourself. I know because when the internet was young and Tribes just released (98) I used to troll forums as a hobby. I know for a fact that getting along isn't hard. You can hold the opposing opinion - it's when you get haughty that people begin to get angry.
Not to say people can't be haughty. When the force of their argument is *that strong* it is often fine to be an ass. Unfortunately, nobody considers your arguments *that strong* and it would serve you better to not insult Tribalwar and the posters at every chance you get.
I'm fine with discussing your opinions rationally, but please cease and desist slandering TW, no matter how much truth you believe your opinions represent. It just makes me want to flame you, rather than argue or debate your points. If someone posts saying, "WOW HOW STUPID!" just ignore it. If people want to debate with you, they'll debate through such white noise.
Zoolooman said:
gotta run and will be back later (hopefulyl we get back to the discussion at hand).
zooloo, you're confusing my VERY strong criticism of the forum's culture with my being "anti-social" and thta's a fallacy. quite simple.
im friends with plenty of folks here, but they know and find funny how i tend to go fulls team ahead into the predictable messes.
i WILL critique this site, when i think it suitable, in spite of the confusion about WHY. i post here cuz i care about tribes and find the real discussion of the real issues to be worthy. i dont think ive been unfair in my criticism and dont think they deserve being twisted into somethign it isnt.
yes, i will point out that this site is clique-oriented. it needs to be said...if folks actually care.
slander? please, zoolooman, cease and desist the hyperbole.
Fine. Go complain in General Discussion about such things. They are off-topic. I want to discuss Tribes here in Tribes Talk. Do you have something else to say about an Onslaught oriented gametype?
What do you think of the round structure - link structure bit I described earlier?
What do you think of the round structure - link structure bit I described earlier?