Hey warfare fans.

[zeus]

http://forums.epicgames.com/showthread. ... st24974215

Today I was able to play two rounds of Warfare and also listen to a litte introduction of Warfare in Leipzig at the GC. There were two presentations: one at the midway booth and one at the Intel booth. I played one round at each booth.

Remember that this is only a very brief description, I had other things to do there. Wait for Catzenjaeger for a more detailed writing.

The first round I played at the Midway booth. And prior to playing this gametype we got a description of Warfare in German.
Unfortunately it seemed that my general knowledge of Warfare (what I had read here) was better than the Midway employee describing it... ...but I learned a few details of Torlan 2 (the map we played) and tested a few things.
Here is the list of the things I can remember:

- The skins are really visible. They aren't brightskins, but bright skins. Let's hope this goes for all models.
- The map (Torlan 2) really seemed a bit monochromic. A little more color would help the game. Remember, EPIC, this isn't GoW.
- The vehicles could use a little more color. Didn't see the Manta at first glance but thought it was detailed walls.
- It really seems that there is only 3rd person view for vehicles now (I wasn't able to ask someone for validation). And the 3rd person view is at a fixed distance. (At least I couldn't use the mousewheel to zoom in out.)
- Torlan 2 uses a SINGLE PRIMARY NODE!!!
I was able to ask some other Midway employee if there will always be only one single primary node, because the announcer screamed "Attack the enemy's primary node". The employee replied: "No, there are two primaries: one for the red team, one for the blue"

[DW_StaticLan]

Great find Zeus!!! Thanks!

Reading through all the posts this is going to be a great game with a huge learning curve. Though I did find the two parts of the interview that interested me the most:

"The core wasn't protected, the base neither. The core is at the same position as in Torlan 1 but half into the ground, so it is less exposed."

"The first round of UT3 felt like moving in mud: really, really slow. But I got used to it at the second presentation and it is actually not as slow as I first thought."

[kaeolian]

Sounds interesting...

Im really trying to reserve judgment for when I play it my self all these reviews are building my anticipation but also a mental picture of what I expect. I was hoping this wouldnt happen as I dont wanna be dissapointed.

[d2frob]

Bring it on!!! Sounds like it should be friendly for when you're stuck with a ton of new players, it's not like the current torlan where if your team sucks it's essentially game over trying to get back from when your cores under attack

[kaeolian]

I dont get what they are complaining about on the forums over there, they say "if the better team is taken back to thier primary and the weaker team get a lucky deamer off etc etc etc"

Its simple they arent the better team then, if they get taken back to the primary and cant win it back tough shit thats what the games about.

Complaining its too hard to win a node back isnt a good excuse in my book, if its too hard dont let your self get into that position in the first place....

stupid noobs stop complaining and play more to get better.

[d2frob]

No, it's me complaining. Try visiting most 14p ons servers and you'll see the team can easily be ruined by a couple of stupid/new players. By getting rid of the multiple nodes it should make it easier for someone to make a difference on their own... but it's hypothetical as i'm yet to play warfare :)

[DW_Hornet]

Well ONS has issues with end game scenarios, especially with single prime maps. It's difficult to get that single primary charged or up for either side. This is the case with just about every team size (6-16), the problem is how easy it is to deny a build if your smart about it. This is more of a mapping issue then anything. You could have multiple primaries and most intriguing maps meet that criteria. Redeemers and super weapons are usually turned off in more competitively oriented environments. That argument is a non issue and is still a mapping game play issue more than anything.

The problem and this is something Wail pointed out, Warfare is a going to have many game play issues because of the complexity involved on the mapping side. Currently the ONS community and AS community have issues producing maps that are oriented on great game play. AS has many issues from player spawns, objectives attributes, pickups that make or break maps,ect. ONS as you are aware of has issues with overpowering vehicles at a node, lockers, how they impact the game, ect. Warfare is going to have all these variables and more. Then you have to really wonder how they will mesh together.

How warfare is going to play out largely remains to be seen.

P.S: I'm still rather clueless about the whole orb system.

[DW_WailofSuicide]

With regards to AS-like objectives and such, I'm mostly worried about Epic maps. I sincerely doubt that most community mappers will put in the additional scripting effort (even if it is easier with Kismet) to do side objectives and other AS-inspired features.