What did unturned 2.0 (classic) do better than unturned 3.0?

Unturned Legacy Iterations
1

To not confuse “unturned 2.0” with Unturned II, i am talking about the classic version of unturned.
I just want to gather the community’s opinion for my future post. This post is just to create a discussion and hear from your opinions:

  • What got worse in 3.0?
  • What got better in 3.0?
  • Which mechanics are better/worse in 2.0? (like crafting, inventory, physics, zombies, difficulty, maps etc.)
  • Why do you think something got better/worse in 3.0?
  • Could we possibly improve Unturned II by taking inspiration from Unturned 2.0?

Please do not post low effort posts below this thread. I might reply with a couple polls below if needed. Just let me know!

9 Likes
2

I didn’t really play 2.x, so I don’t have much authority on this topic, however, this is what I can say:

Crafting in 2.0 is atrocious, I really, really don’t want a system like that in 3.x.

Free poll. Which kind of system would you prefer in UII?

  • 2.x crafting system
  • 3.x crafting system
0 voters
1 Like
3

I somewhat agree – You really couldn’t know how to craft stuff. But here’s this thing i liked, base building was tier based. First you had to craft something from planks, then you had to combine it with more planks to make something else, and you had to combine that thing with more stuff to make a wall.
This was good, because you could resume your progress when you took a break after crafting the first thing. This also made crafting harder and more time consuming, which i prefer over 3.0’s insta crafting to be honest

4 Likes
4

The inventory system is way better in 3.x than in 2.x (Imagine a botle of water taking as much slots as a bazooka or an entire wall.

3 Likes
5

Just put short timers on things.
Subnautica/Fortnite STW does this fairly well.

6

zombies imo

they followed you wherever not just to the town’s borders

5 Likes
7

Car engine sounds and also map in Unturned 2.0 were much better (it was like an item).

4 Likes
8

Other than stacking, 2.x is inferior in most aspects. ‘Nostalgia’ is just loyalty bait and performance was only because it was a very small game back then.

There are some features that are in someway ‘Better’ but it’s subjective to your opinion. Some may like it, others don’t.

e.g.

  • Weight system in a tiny inventory
  • A guessing game in disguise of a crafting system
  • Sounds/appearances of certain things.
  • Simplicity (Or reluctance to adapt/learn)
9 Likes
9

neither

10

3 system, however if you EVEN THINK ABOUT MAKING A SMALL CRAFTING BUTTON BEING A GOOD IDEA then both systems are considered the same

11

the vehicle physics.

2 Likes
12

As previously mentioned 3.0 has, for the most part, taken everything 2.0 had and done it better. Needless to say, however, not everything was better. Most edges 2.0 had were in the realm of combat:

  • The most prominent mechanic present in 2.0 but absent in 3.0 was a more sensible shotgun ammunition system - being able to load individual shells into shotguns, aka fractional reloading, was one of the things I miss most from that era of Unturned. Fractional reloading also has implications in many other guns, but it is most widely associated with shotguns.

  • Ammunition types felt like they had more of a semblance of realism, even if slightly more confusing, they all more or less corresponded to real ammo calibers. Unlike in 3.0, where a Mosin and a Glock take the same ammunition for arbitrary reasons.

  • 2.0 had a more dark, and arguably immersive atmosphere in general, which 3.0 was and still is lacking in a majority of maps. France is my favourite map, despite how little of it I’ve played, largely because of its uniquely immersive aesthetic. It is one of the few maps I’ve ever seen that have lived up to this standard. That being said, 3.0 has a special charm to it as well, and I don’t want everything to be too dreary and drab.

  • Being able to put optical attachments onto handguns. I always felt like it would have been reasonable for pistols in 3.0 to be able to accept anything that wasn’t an ironsight or a rifle-size scope.

  • 2.0 had a global navmesh, but I’m not worried about this in the slightest because UII seems to have that covered.

  • Blunt weapons in 2.0 felt a lot more powerful, whereas in 3.0 even the former king of blunt weapons, the Sledgehammer, is merely a worse sidegrade to a decent bladed weapon.

  • A weight system. This one is a mixed bag because of the other differences in the inventory system between 2.0 and 3.0, but 2.0’s weight and 3.0’s volume systems can both be combined to get the best of both worlds in UII.

  • It could be argued that the lack of the ability to stun zombies made them much more scary to fight, thus adding to the gameplay experience. An ideal compromise can be made that is neither 2.0 or 3.0’s levels of stuns though.

I’m probably forgetting a lot of other things at the moment, but I feel satisfied that Unturned II is extremely likely to already be addressing most, if not all, of the above points. I believe that Nelson has learned immensely from 2.0, but moreso from 3.0.

I liked this in some senses but I feel it could have been better balanced in 2.0. Having composite construction materials in UII that are a mix of multiple other resources would be very cool though.

P.S: 2.0’s crafting was horrific. I’m sorry.

8 Likes
13

bran cereal

11 Likes
14

image

9 Likes
15

As I had seen in a video from MELIKEBIGBOOM HERE about 2.0 zombies that spotted you would follow you forever until they had hit a barrier like water aswell another thing from that video was that you could equip yourself with high tier loot and transfer it over to another server with that equipment so yeah…

16

Sorry for the late reply, everyone.

Fair point. The main reason zombies were harder in the first place was because they were not stopped by a magical wall preventing them from following you.

Same. This is the whole reason that dragged me away from liking maps such as washington, pei and hawaii. In a post apocalyptic word, not everything should look bright and alive. Ireland and France maps are quite good examples, you can tell you are in a post apocalyptic world just by looking around as you spawn.

Yes, bran cereal

So i decided to add a couple polls below (also thank you spebby for the crafting system poll:)

image
image706×264 34.4 KB

Which ones do you prefer? Vote below:

  • 2.x Inventory System
  • 3.x Inventory System
0 voters
  • 2.x Atmosphere
  • 3.x Atmosphere (reply with which maps do you like more)
0 voters
  • 2.x Attachment System
  • 3.x Attachment System
0 voters
  • 2.x Zombies
  • 3.x Zombies
0 voters
  • 2.x Cartography System
  • 3.x Cartography System
0 voters

A little explanation on this one: I’m talking about GPS and Chart navigation items.

  • 2.x Weapons (melee)
  • 3.x Weapons (melee)
0 voters
  • 2.x Weapons (ranged)
  • 3.x Weapons (ranged)
0 voters
  • 2.x Base Building
  • 3.x Base Building
0 voters

Let me know if more polls are needed, or need clarification.

17

beans 2.x
beans 3.x

5 Likes
18

Beans Unturned II

19

2.x’s weapons had more value. Not just ranged, but ALL weapons felt much more valuable than their 3.x counterparts. Even if I had just picked up a knapsack and a butcher knife, I still believed I had a fighting chance against the maybe 4 people who had maplestrikes in the server. This is probably due to the scarcity of weapons in 2.x - melee and ranged.

3 Likes
20

Thanks to everyone for voting, it really will help a lot.

Inventory system: People clearly like the current inventory system more than the classic’s, weight based inventory system. Of course there’s much more to this (like keybinding) but the weight and inventory slots are the main reason here.

Atmosphere: People mostly like the dark, immersive atmosphere of the classic more than 3.x.

Attachment system: This one surprised me the most. I expected people to love the ability to put scopes on literally everything. Apparently not.

Zombies: People like how zombies can chase them everywhere, and they are much harder because the player isn’t able to stun the zombies. Overall, people prefer the “hardness” of 2.x zombies than 3.x zombies.

Cartography System: In classic, you had to find a map yourself and in order to see where you were, you had to carry the map in your inventory (which, in 2.x, every inventory slot is important to have) and also had to hold it in your hand, so you couldn’t just easily switch between weapons and maps. At some point, to save inventory space, you wouldn’t even carry it with yourself and had to know where you were at all times. Of course, in 2.x, this did not really matter because there was only one map (ignoring monolith) that is PEI. In 3.x, all you have to do is find a chart/gps and press M. People were very indecisive here, looks like.

Melee weapons: I thought people would like 2.x melee weapons more. In 2.x, melee weapons actually mattered. Especially the sledgehammer and the katana. @Doy_Man summed it up well here:

Ranged weapons: People undoubtebly like the variety of ranged weapons in 3.x. Not just that, but ranged combat was also a lot better in 3.x. No need to argue here.

Base Building: Majority of people like how easy it is to build a base in 3.x. In classic, it was really, really time consuming, arguably unneccessarily complicated. This is connected to the crafting in some ways.

Alright, i sorted the results. Please let me know if i am wrong in some parts. Thanks to everyone who voted.

2 Likes