Difference between revisions of "Talk:Unreal Tournament 2004"

Latest revision as of 14:05, 23 May 2014

Umm, about that 'Additional Info' section... UT2004 netcode didn't really improve anything, it just made it different. It allowed for 32 players + vehakals, but due to all the bandwidth "optimizations" it worsened support for low player counts such as 1v1 matches. 1v1 servers often run at twice the default tick rate (or higher) because of how terrible the netcode feels in such a situation. The default tick is 20 or 25 (I can't remember which), and the community has a self-mandated rule that all competitive matches much be played at 35 tick or high. 1v1 servers are often 40-50 tick and there have been some at 60-70 through the years. Certainly this is proof that UT2004 netcode is not better, right? -- T2A` 17:31, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure. It's somewhat confusing either way and perhaps needs to be spelled out what the difference actually was. The problem is that the netcode was "improved" but it was only done so for what Epic must have felt was the "sweet spot", aka 8-24 players. --Sir Brizz 01:11, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I just re-worded it to remove subjective language about "better" and "worse" and stuck to the functional improvement of the netcode: vehicles and player count. --W0rf 11:47, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

There was already some information about the ECE in the releases section. I think it might work better separate from that though. Then there could just be a link to the later section in the releases area. --Haarg 00:28, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

System Requirements should probably be under Additional Information. --Sir Brizz 00:42, 24 July 2007 (EDT)

There was never a "single DVD" release in the US, thus that release detail needs a bit more detail. --Sir Brizz 00:05, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

hey, under the Engine section where it lists additional middlware engines...why is SpeedTree there? I don't recall it ever being used in UT2004. I know it was integrated into the engine but it wasn't used with UT2004.--Torvec 18:28, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

I'm not sure. I thought some of the trees in ONS maps were done by speedtree. --Sir Brizz 18:42, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Nope, SpeedTree is a technology for generating trees and rendering them. UT2004 only uses static mesh trees. --Wormbo 04:38, 26 August 2007 (EDT)

DE maps

Did those maps have that prefix in UT2004? --Sir Brizz 20:12, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Yessir, both of them do. I don't know why the prefix was missing earlier, since the filenames clearly have them. --Kaithofis 20:41, 28 April 2008 (EDT)

Standard weapons?

I'm not sure what the point of listing certain weapons as 'standard' is. The sniper rifle, AVRiL, grenade launcher, and mine launcher are all featured in lots of stock maps across two gametypes. In the case of the sniper rifle, it exists in some stock CTF/DM maps as well. The superweapons are also widely featured, so I'm not sure why they should be considered separate either. Some of the others, like the translocator, ball launcher, and super shock rifle could be separated out. If we did want to separate them out though, it should just be a single divided list, not two lists right next to each other. – Haarg 07:54, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

 Support Though I think that there should be one list and notes near the non-standard ones. For example:

Not a very nice-looking list, but something like that. --GreatEmerald 09:11, 5 May 2008 (EDT)

I decided to revert the page to Kaithofis' last edit. Something like what GreatEmerald said is probably nicer and less redundant, and so on that basis it has my  Support. --Dark Pulse 06:37, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

Standard weapons as in the the weapons whose shadows appear in the weapon bar, and the weapons that are given to players in LMS. The only weapon in which there is any argument for being included into the standard set is the sniper rifle as it appears on some stock DM and CTF maps. --Ben1220 11:13 Tue, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

 Comment Ben: remember to conclude your Talk with "--~~~~" to make sure that we know you wrote that :) --Kaithofis 08:15, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

 Comment Kaithofis: Use the <nowiki> tag :) And you could add the signature of those who didn't write as "<small>The preceding unsigned comment was added by Name (Talk).</small>" like it does in Wikipedia :) And these poll tags are really fun. --GreatEmerald 09:57, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

 Comment LMS is just one game mode of many. Just because that's what's given in LMS doesn't make them "standard"... it simply means that's what's given in LMS. In some maps (Mostly ONS ones) You can pick up AVRiLs, Grenade Launchers, and Mine Layers, which by your arguement, makes them just as standard. If you REALLY want to get standard, the Shield Gun and Assault Rifle are the only two weapons given in every gametype, and everything else must be picked up... excepting LMS. There really is no good point for "standard" weapons because LMS is an exception... not the rule. --Dark Pulse 17:07, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

 Comment LMS? Why only LMS? You forgot Mutant. ONS weapons can be added to normal DM or other gametypes with a mutator, not sure if it's a stock mutator though (but should be). --GreatEmerald 07:55, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

 Support except that I don't think we need the notes by the LG and Sniper. --Sir Brizz 10:07, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

If we wanted to separate them out some, I think having a section for 'normal' weapons, one for super weapons, and one for utility/gametype (TL, ball launcher) weapons would be reasonable. Super shock doesn't fit into that well though. – Haarg 20:28, 6 May 2008 (EDT)

 Neutral Classic sniper and Lightning both would go to "normal" ones? Super Shock Rifle would be in special ones.

Yes, as would the AVRiL, mine launcher, and grenade launcher. — Haarg 09:46, 7 May 2008 (EDT)

Map List Suggestions

If someone has some time and wants a small project, it would probably be nice to do two things here. 1) Indicate which maps were originally available in UT2003 (including any UT2003 bonus packs), and 2) at the top or bottom of the map list indicate how many original maps there were, how many UT2003 maps there were and the number of total maps there were. The best way to do this would be to install UT2004 retail and see which maps were UT2003 maps. --Sir Brizz 10:22, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Done --Kaithofis 15:03, 16 December 2008 (EST)

Perfect! Thanks. --Sir Brizz 10:41, 18 December 2008 (EST)

UT2003 Maps

Notice: the text says all Ut2003 maps are in 2004 as well. This isn't true. CTF-DE-LavaGiant2 was not put into UT2004 - I heard it had problems. DM-Curse3 wasn't put in either, but at least that was upgraded to DM-Curse4. I'll look into it and see if I can get LG2 working anyway.--Amitakartok 14:24, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

No, it says almost all UT2003 maps made it to UT2004, which is true. There are a few stories about why Lavagiant wasn't included. An Epic rep. stated that it had too many bsp holes, while J.P. Eekels (the author) said that Epic didn't see his design strategy (large map with fewer details) fit for the game, and thus cut it. --Kaithofis 15:56, 24 May 2009 (EDT)

It was because of BSP holes all right. Try rebuilding LavaGiant yourself ;) --GreatEmerald 10:21, 25 May 2009 (EDT)

Well, I put LavaGiant into UT2004 and it works flawlessly.--Amitakartok 11:45, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

That's because UT2003 maps are cross-compatible with UT2004 without rebuilding. --Sir Brizz 21:55, 7 July 2009 (EDT)

Bonus Pack 2 = Canon?

I have a question. Since past Bonus Packs and maps are considered canon for the Unreal Universe as a whole, what about the BP2 maps? Acatana, Jumpship, SubRosa, Thrust... should the characters, timelines, team pages and corporation pages be updated with info from these descriptions, despite that these were created as custom content and later added as official content?

For example, including info from AS-BP2-Jumpship (an Izanagi attack on Liandri space) on both Izanagi and Liandri pages, or the N.E.G. assault on Liandri HQ on Subrosa on both N.E.G. and Liandri pages.

What do you think?--Neon Knight 20:50, 8 October 2009 (EDT)

No, these are still user created maps. Epic just lacked own maps for a bonus pack, so they applied polish to user maps and released them instead. —Wormbo 04:27, 9 October 2009 (EDT)

It's probably safe to say that only maps in the "campaign"/"tournament"/"whatever" can be considered canon. --Sir Brizz 01:33, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Well, that would leave the remaining retail maps (and the addon ones which aren't in the campaign, i.e. the ONS ones) as non-canon. --Neon_Knight 12:21, 20 October 2009 (EDT)

Is popularity really relevant?

Perhaps I'm more inclined towards the wiki being a neutral place with information, but there's something bugging me... Are the popularity datas really relevant for this article? --Neon_Knight 09:54, 17 May 2014 (CDT)

Someone was super interested in proving UT2004 was a better game than UT3. I would say no. --Sir Brizz 16:05, 23 May 2014 (CDT)