Talk:Assault

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)