Difference between revisions of "Talk:Assault"

Latest revision as of 15:33, 3 May 2008

There's a lot of duplication between this page and the game pages. It's also a lot of code/map discussion. We aren't trying to replace the Unreal Engine Wiki. You can create links there easily with [[Unreal:PageName]]--Haarg 05:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

Actually, most of that information isn't on the UnrealWiki (at least, it's not directly on the Assault page) even though it probably should be. I wrote that straight out of my head except I checked the /GameObjective/ class to make sure I had all the objectives down. Those aren't mapping-specific (although it's important information for mappers) but rather it's informative for the player to know what they'll be facing. Maybe the Construction part wasn't entirely necessary, but it explains why there are so few (stock and custom) Assault maps. --IceCreamYou 22:13, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

The point isn't that we don't want to duplicate the content of the Unreal Engine Wiki, it's that we don't want to duplicate the scope of the Unreal Engine Wiki. Most of the stuff you added should be put in there, not here. By duplication, I meant the map lists. The maps are already listed on the game pages. So there should probably be either links to that, or possibly to the Assault map categories. --Haarg 23:48, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

As far as I understand it, UnrealWiki is for developers and Archives is for the players. I suppose the players don't need to know the actual names of the objective-related actors, but it certainly makes sense for there to be a description of the objectives and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to call them by a name that's different than the actor's. The Construction part could be simplified into a statement like "Assault maps are difficult to make, so there arent' very many of them" but I don't think it's going to deter or put off anyone to see a short explanation of why that is. And I think it's important to have a list of the maps. I don't think that redundancy is necessarily a bad thing. I like that I can go to a page about Assault and see everything about it there at once, for the same reason that I like to go to a page about UT2004 and see all the maps for it listed there. Nothing I put on the page except for the names of the Assault actors is at all technical, so I guess I'm just not understanding your point here or we have different ideas of how simplified this wiki should be. Change it if you want or wait until there are other opinions, but I'm happy with it as-is. --IceCreamYou 00:18, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I think the actor names are definitely the wrong names to use when when talking to players. In addition to that, you list coder only bugs and fixes. The problem with listing maps is consistency. The various gametypes should have a reasonably similar structure. It doesn't seem to me that the Deathmatch page should contain all the DM maps. The map list can stay for now though. We'll see how people think that kind of thing should be organized as things go on.--Haarg 02:19, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Simple fix. Removed the technical information, but left the general list intact so people can see that there are numerous ways to "complete objectives" in Assault. --W0rf 11:57, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I don't see a reason why maps can't be linked to for particular games, such as [[Unreal Tournament 2004#Assault|UT2004 Assault Maps]]. --Sir Brizz 12:27, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Fair Enough. --IceCreamYou 17:51, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

Assault Trials?

Joeking, you just added a section called "Assault Trials". (By the way, don't forget you can preview your edits to see if everything is OK; you still left some typos.) This section is a bit unclear, at least to me who hasn't heard of it. It seems to be some kind of mod for UT2004 that adds a new gametype that sounds like a mix between Assault and those trick jump maps that were (are?) pretty popular. If so, it's not Assault, and shouldn't be in this article. If it's popular enough, it should be in its own article, but get a second opinion on that first I guess, since I'm not familiar with it myself. Maybe you can clear this up a bit? Retodon8 17:12, 17 February 2008 (EST)

I'm not certain if there is an actual Assault Trials gametype, but I know of many trials maps. If that is what is being referred to, in addition to cleaning it up, it might be good to move it to be under the UT2004 section. — Haarg 17:18, 17 February 2008 (EST)

Unnecessary section

The "See Also" section is not necessary now, as UT3 is already released. Maybe it should be re-written or simply link to UT3's Warfare. --GreatEmerald 13:58, 21 February 2008 (EST)

I've rewritten it with the proper tense. — Haarg 15:31, 21 February 2008 (EST)

Energy core-type objective / Lay-out

Cureently the article states that "The only use of this objective in a stock map is in AS-Junkyard". But as ECE is now counted as a stock map, shouldn't it be changed? AS-BP2-Subrosa has a Data Stick objective, while AS-BP2-Outback has a Hops Cannister objective. Also, todo: images. --GreatEmerald 18:09, 2 May 2008 (EDT)

Good point, I agree that it should be changed. Speaking of changes, I think the top of the page could be made a bit more appealing. Perhaps if the picture was moved down a bit (I'll try and replace it with a .gif preview from the game tonight), or if the explanatory text would be moved down to its own "Explanation" section. Right now I think the top of the page looks a bit messy --Kaithofis 07:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Agree with GIF and moving the image down. Would be prefect if it was long enough to cover the whole quote and text, but it's too wide so it will take up too much space. Moving down should look better. --GreatEmerald 13:36, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Right, I think this looks a tad better. The preview takes a quite a bit of space though, and it distracts from the text. This is the best I could think of right now though. I've also added the info on the 2 maps, so that's taken care of --Kaithofis 16:33, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Initial gametype description

Is there a reason that the UT2004 gametype description is at the top of the article instead of under the UT2004 section? Makes it seem like it ONLY appears in UT2004 at first glance... --Sir Brizz 17:46, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Why, that's a general description. Counts for UT1 just as well. But maybe it needs more graphics from UT, though UT2004 graphics are a lot more eye pleasing. --GreatEmerald 18:12, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

I agree with Brizz on this one. The general description underneath the UT2004 quote covers it well enough. The 2004 quote doesn't really add anything and I can imagine that it works a bit misleading --Kaithofis 18:33, 3 May 2008 (EDT)