Jump to content

DoctorMcBatman

Members
  • Content Count

    159
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by DoctorMcBatman

  1. Can you confirm, will the game be free-to-play? If so, will EA purchasers be refunded their $30? I am not interested in cosmetics or XP packs or in-game currency.
  2. EDIT: You know what, I'm over it. Good luck with your game TF51.
  3. If we're being semantic, we paid for a licence. But I know I didn't pay for cosmetics. My paid license was not to access cosmetics, it was to access the game. If a person no longer needs a paid license to play this game, those of us who did pay for a license should be refunded. If my.games disagrees, I may initiate a chargeback. Regarding whether "in-game currency" refers to the current currency used to purchase upgrades or a new real-cash transaction, that is unclear, I agree. But that's not my fault. If my.games wants to be vague and imprecise, I'm going to assume the worst given all of the other red flags.
  4. For those that haven't seen it yet: https://worldwar3.com/en/2020/08/12/ww3-development-refocused-early-access-purchases-unavailable-from-13-8/?fbclid=IwAR1ehdq06k49RxEkJiNir16e1GVuZNr9idGNMjtcDT-Bh-MyZX-8v5A9ByA So this seems to confirm F2P. This is the awful news we all expected but hoped wouldn't come to pass. There is absolutely no conciliatory in-game content that is worth my $30. I paid for a game, not cosmetic bullshit or XP packs or whatever scam this project is turning into. If the game is going F2P, a refund is the only acceptable compensation. "Any in-game purchases made during the Early Access period..." So WW3 will implement MTX during the EA period? That's quite audacious. Once MTX and F2P are brought into the mix, the primary design ethos becomes player retention, while sensible game design is relegated. These two concepts are largely incompatible with each other. You have to compromise the latter to pursue the former. I was one of the few people who wanted to be an ambassador for this game and defended it despite the hiccups throughout 2018 through earlier this year, but this confirmation has pushed me well beyond my threshold.
  5. I would be very surprised if it's TF51. I think it's Techland or People Can Fly (I don't think Epic owns them anymore).
  6. Yep the one from May 25th, I didn't see it until a week or so ago. Was a bit surprised, given how good TF51's previous two roadmaps looked (especially the first one). Not talking about the content itself, just visual presentation - as any content on a roadmap shouldn't be taken seriously until the studio proves they can meet it (which was happening during the first part of EA, but then stopped). I could forgive it if the AMA was actually useful or if we had transparency through other means. That all makes sense, but there's a dissonance in what we've been told and what we've seen throughout this period. We were frequently assured all was well, everything was on schedule, all of the necessary money was there, etc., even through the rougher periods like parts of last year. Then earlier this year the team goes completely silent; players already know that player counts are bad for quite some time, and we know the game doesn't have a great reputation in the gaming community at large (which is shame, because even through all of this I maintain the game is really very good). Then out of nowhere a publishing deal is announced with a huge corporation, and we have received very few details on what this means. If we go by the original schedule (which we were told last year that it was still on schedule), right now we should be a few months into WW3's 1.0 release, I think right? So... it's a bit perplexing. That narrative doesn't add up based on what we've seen from our perspective. Maybe we're all totally wrong and there's a perfectly logical explanation for everything, but it doesn't feel that way. ____________________________________________________________________________________ One thing in general though guys, throwing a tantrum and demanding someone speaks to us isn't beneficial to anyone. And 5 angry people on a forum are nothing to a company, so you won't move the needle much anyway. We just have to wait and judge when the time comes. ____________________________________________________________________________________ I have some great memories of playing with TSA and your crew on Smolensk. That was peak WW3 for me. Took a bit of a break from gaming for a while, but I should check back into the Discord now that work has calmed down. I am still cautiously hopeful about WW3, because we really don't have a good Battlefield alternative. But I guess time will tell.
  7. I don't think WW3 is abandoned at all. Maybe a bit of development hell mixed with indirection. But they do seem genuine about completing the game and releasing it. I'm also not suggesting the game will automatically become bad, just that the communal interaction is not looking great and that can be a bad sign. If the model shifts too much and the focus ibecomes pointed toward MTX and they start using the dreaded term "live service," that will likely affect the design to a point that's past my personal threshold of acceptability. The big issue is we don't know how much about the game is changing due to this deal. If nothing was changing, they probably wouldn't be so silent. Maybe the changes will be better. Maybe. Or maybe not. All we know is the communication has become very poor.
  8. We are watching WW3 transform from a genuinely passionate indie game project into a corporate-run product. Devs are now probably not allowed to really post/interact with the community, and dev communication that does come through probably has some bureaucratic approval process or other red tape. It's hard to know if the silence is due to them not knowing where tf they're taking this game, or if it's due to typical PR silence from corporate entities that have very strict marketing and player exploitation plans. One of the big appeals about WW3 originally, aside from gameplay, was the fact it was being self-published by an indie dev and we wouldn't have to deal with any of the typical corporate/big publisher bullshit. I just hope they don't go F2P and give those of us who spent $30 some worthless cosmetics as consolation, while turning the game into a MTX shop. And while I agree this is a bit disrespectful, this community didn't fund the game - TF51 said the game was always fully funded even without the EA period, though that then begs the question 'why sign an external publisher deal?' But we're not going to get any real answers from TF51 or my.games - it's been all corporate-speak so far, and I doubt that will change. I saw that new roadmap... was that made by my.games? It was one of the crappiest hastily put together looking roadmaps I've ever seen. Both of TF51's previous roadmaps looked better and had actual effort put into them. It's obviously not a big issue in the grand scheme of things, but like, with my.games being a huge company you'd think their digital image editing savviness would be a few steps above this? (I'm assuming they were the ones who produced it)
  9. In the past, I think I've reported griefers to the hacks@worldwar3.com email (it's something like that).
  10. Disappointing. Mostly evasive answers. The answers that weren't evasive were very corporate and lacked detail. Not feeling any better about this.
  11. Yeah fair enough, that's a more accurate way of saying it, if they do leave the page up. I'm more concerned about the potentially shifting business model and how that will affect the game.
  12. That says nothing about the game being F2P once it is released. It just says it will be removed from the Steam store until it releases. EDIT: Although, the word "valuable" in that statement does imply a MTX economy, not necessarily F2P. Regardless, I don't like the sound of this.
  13. Is this confirmed? All I saw is that we will get a skin or camo or something, nothing about F2P.
  14. I just checked the roadmap for the first time in quite a while. Last time I looked at it, it had fairly different graphics/laid out plans. I see Recon: Tactical Royale listed. I definitely remember "Recon" being talked about and probably on the original roadmap from long ago, but this "Tactical Royale" component is new, right? Is this a battle royale mode? If dev time and resources are being dedicated to a battle royale mode, that is very disappointing and it's not something I expected or wanted when I put money down on WW3. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what it is or I'm in the minority with this view, but I was pretty surprised to see it on the roadmap. Would much prefer the focus to be on Warzone Large and Small and game modes like capture the flag, Rush-like modes, etc.
  15. Yeah I also thought naming it Breakthrough was a bit odd. I'm also not keen on small player count modes, but I'll reserve judgement for when I actually play it. Stability does seem to be a consistent issue players have, and yeah there's not really a good excuse for that. As I've said before here, if you're going to ask people to play the game, it needs to be playable. There's a certain amount of instability understanding for EA, but even I'd admit of all the EA games I've played, WW3 crashed the most (though my in-game performance was always very solid). But the devs have not shrugged off this feedback. They're aware of these issues, more so than we are because they have analytics to track them. I recall several months ago one of the devs did talk about stability and UE, something about WW3's memory usage/management and the fact that serious optimization would have to wait until nearer to release. My hope is that TF51 have decided/realized the super interactive EA thing wasn't working for them. So they're hopefully just making the game how they want to make it, and not including the community as much. Is that good for players right now? No, it feels like they went from being active to inactive on the game's development. But my hope is that they knowingly decided to step back from interactivity, even though they knew it would piss people off, but it may be what's needed to get the game in shape for an actual release. Though, this is just conjecture. I haven't been active on a consistent basis in a long time. And most gameplay trailers from any studio are heavily staged/scripted. But in the early days of WW3 on the bigger servers, I definitely had matches that mimic'd the feeling portrayed in those initial gameplay trailers. Actually, I'm rewatching them now and the Gamescom trailer at least does indeed appear to mostly be legitimate gameplay - you can even see the soldier and vehicle movement jankiness if you look closely. The only other trailers I'm seeing look to be obvious CG/in-engine for the most part and they are labeled that way. Fairly honest trailer campaign IMO, compared to AAA devs at least. Server browser did come shortly after that IIRC. We asked for a browser for a while, and like you said they kept saying 'not yet,' but then one day they were like 'alright, here's the browser.' It was way earlier than we expected and they clearly did shift development priorities to meet this request. Glad you brought it up because that's another good example. Not sure what's going on with the SCAR. I was playing when it first released, and it seemed to work fine then. I guess a later patch bugged it somehow? I'm pretty sure it was fine when it first got into the game.
  16. They developed a TDM mode because players asked. Who those players are and where they are now, I don't know, but I'd have some words for them if I did. I guarantee TF51 made other changes based on player feedback. And customization in 0.2 was meh, very few of the components actually did anything IIRC. I haven't played since .6 or .7, what has changed since then? Last I played, the customization system was essentially the same as on release, though I could be remembering it wrong. Agreed re: the HUD though, I have not liked the screenshots I've seen of the new HUD. ? No one blamed players. On several occasions I've aired my grievances with the game and my reasons for not feeling compelled to play it in quite a while. Yes, this EA period has been rocky. Yes, TF51 deserve a lot of criticism. Complaints about communications seem valid; they were very good about communication during the first part of the EA period when I was around actively, but it sounds like they've slacked a bit in this area. This thread was made to acknowledge these issues AND remind players that it's still in our best interest to support the game, or at the very least to refrain from negatively piling up on it any time it's mentioned on reddit/gaming forums. You brought up BFV. Battlefield is really the main comparison in terms of the gameplay WW3 offers. Do you really think the people running EA DICE give a fuck about what you want in a game? They've sold Battlefield out to market research and industry fads. They've shunned their longstanding core player base to chase a new demographic, because they think that's how they'll make more money. Admonishing WW3 as a failure at this point is shooting yourself in the foot as a gamer (if you care about genuine games made with integrity...). I'll take a passionate developer who screws up 10/10 times vs. a studio that abandons its roots to chase a quick buck. You might be angry at the issues you've endured while playing WW3, but expressing that anger as a degradation of TF51/WW3 only helps the big publisher monopoly. Gamers love to get outraged, but in this case I'm asking you: is it worth it? What does it accomplish and what do you want the PC gaming scene to ideally look like?
  17. Agreed. Having dedicated workstations is very common, definitely. But you have two PCs for gaming (simulators are games). And it is silly to complain about spending $100 when you have $3K worth of PCs after saying "not everyone has $2-3K to spend on a PC." And with SSDs, the "more stuff installed bogs down your PC" argument is not really relevant anymore. Mixing RAM generally works, so long as you match all specs (some even say it's OK to mismatch clock speed, but I wouldn't do that). Your MoBo recommends matching because that removes the potential problem of the consumer screwing up the match (which could put customer support pressure on the MoBo manufacturer). But if you're not comfortable doing that, it really isn't that expensive to buy a new set of 2x8 (sell your current 8GB stick on eBay and you get $20-30 back!). Here you go, Amazon Germany, all 2x8GB are under 100 Euro. The USD vs. Euro prices really are not so different. Is your setup this comprehensive? It looks like this guy's setup is physically only set up to do flight sims. Yeah, in this case not wanting to physically move the entire cockpit every time you want to play an FPS is a valid reason. I assumed you just have a regular tower and plug in a joystick and pedals. Do most flight sim players have a setup like this guy's? I'll admit, it's not an area I'm too familiar with. Wait... so you do have non-sims on your sim-only PC. So this is just a case of selective preference. And that's fine if you don't want to play WW3 that badly.
  18. If you switch the country to Germany, the Euro prices for these components are very close to the USD price. This build is still around €1,200, which is $1,350 USD. A bit more expensive than I suggested initially, but not too much. But do you know what does cost $2-3K unnecessarily? Buying two separate PCs to game on at the same time. And as long as you match the RAM specs, brand name doesn't matter. Even if you went out a bought 2x8GB matching new sticks, you still wouldn't be spending that much money. Plenty of DDR3 16GB packages on Newegg for well under $100. Not sure how you ended up spending €100 on 2x4... everything I'm seeing for DDR3 2x4GB is under $60. If you really wanted to correct your performance issue, you could pretty easily do it. And it seems silly to complain about price when you buy two separate PCs to run at the same time. If the socket on your MoBo is the issue, that's another story, but presently it seems worth it to try putting in more RAM. FYI I'm still on DDR3 as well. And definitely not a WW3 "fanboi." I don't have it installed at the moment, and haven't for some time. On the topic of this thread: I think the decision to add TDM was awful (really awful), and I've been a bit disappointed that content has slowed down over the last 6 months or so (compared to the first part of EA). I didn't like the decision to close/remove all 40-64 player servers, as I think WW3 is at its best on the bigger maps with lots of players. Like I said in my other post, the game deserves critique. But blaming it for performance issues with your specs (and considering you have a PC that could easily run it well), is silly. To be fair to you though, your specs do meet the Minimum quoted on WW3's Steam page. I personally think they're far too low given the game's visuals and current optimization state, but TF51 say you should be able to play, so you do have some credibility in complaining.
  19. $1200 (mobo price isn't listed for some reason, but it's $170) and this will reliably play most games at solid settings for the next 3-4 years. It's actually very close to your flight sim PC. And PCPartPicker doesn't always have the best price listed, I always recommend Googling each individual component - in which case you usually find another $50 - $200 worth of savings. If you keep your 1060 GB, you save $300, bringing this down to $900. You do not need to spend $2-3K on a PC to get solid performance on newer photorealistic games. $2-3K is for Very High/Maxed settings at 1440p60, ultrawide, dual display, or 4K30. As new console gen games get released for PC, you're going to have a tough time with your non-flight sim PC. I'm still not sure why you won't play all games on your better PC (as most of the non-sim games you play would benefit from the FPS increase, whereas the sim games wouldn't be that affected by an FPS hit on your i5 PC), but that's your loss and I'm not going to try to convince you further. This is also a bit too relative since I don't know what settings you use on the games you claim run well, what you consider good performance, or what you (or your wife) are running for resolution. With WW3, it sounds like it would run fine on your PC (at Medium) if you just had more RAM? You said it worked well when you had 16GB. So, that's a pretty easy fix... $40 for an 8GB stick and it will improve performance in every other game you play in addition to making WW3 playable. I bet you spend more at the grocery store or on coffees per week. I'm sure WW3 could be better optimized currently, and I'm sure it will be in the future. But regardless of how you're able to get other games to run well, your CPU and RAM are on the lower-end and are holding you back, and I don't think it's that unreasonable given the entirety of your specs.
  20. Your hardware is just OK - and for an EA game that isn't fully optimized and with WW3's texture/shader/lighting/etc. quality, yeah it's not surprising you're having a tough time. Medium is probably too high for your setup. Your GPU is about the only piece of gear that I would say is "good" for WW3. 12-16GB RAM would be a big help (as you've experienced) and a SSD too. But the weakest component by far is that i5 3XXX. That's a tough one to workaround, aside from getting a new PC. I don't think it's fair to say the game runs poorly when this is your setup. And even more bizarre that you have a much better PC that your refuse to play anything but flight sims on... I'm also surprised you say you get good performance with these specs in HLL and Squad. You say "I'm not going to add better hardware just to play WW3" - well pretty soon that PC is going to have a tough time running any photorealistic new or recent game on Medium+ settings. I'm surprised you haven't encountered this with more games.
  21. Not optimization, not content, not meta/balance changes. WW3's biggest issue to this day, IMO, is the October 2018 launch. Somewhere over 10K people tried to play, and very few could get in. It left a very poor and defining reputation on the game. I still see this issue referenced above all others in forums/reddit when anyone mentions WW3. It was very unfortunate and arguably poorly handled, regarding the launch. But I think it's a real shame that people are ignoring the game because of that. The EA period hasn't been totally smooth, and that hasn't helped. But I really think if that launch issue didn't occur, the game would have grown a decent-sized core community that stuck around. In a gaming industry of billion dollar corporations (and even some indies) compromising their games to sell MTX, ignoring players to chase trends, etc., TF51 is genuinely trying to make an uncompromised game that both they and the players want to play. Black Matter with their WW2 game is doing something very similar. So I just wanted to remind players: Even though launch was poor, even though you may be disgruntled with balance changes or content, even if performance isn't good for you... The Farm 51 are the good guys. Abandoning and ridiculing them is not good for gaming. I know market forces are more powerful than one forum post, but those of you still checking in, please consider this and potentially defending WW3 when you see negative comments on forums/social media. The game deserves critique in certain areas, but it deserves praise in many others and it is very deserving of a second chance. Not confident about this anymore. Big red flags with the my.games deal and that AMA.
  22. What are your PC specs and what in-game settings are you using?
  23. I believe this philosophy as well. I do see players sometimes complain that fast TTKs means "whoever sees first, wins." But... isn't that how it should be a lot of the time? Why should you be able to run into a completely open field with no cover and still win that gun-fight? And if someone shows up behind you and you fail to hear their footsteps... why should you be able to win that gun-fight? If the players see each other at the same time and trade shots, the more skilled player should still win more consistently anyway, right? So I don't see "whoever sees first, wins" to be a big problem. It's still about skill, just a different type of skill than recoil/fire control. Just because someone is a great shot, doesn't make them a great player. Maneuvering the map and using assets are just as important (possibly more important).
  24. I haven't finished reading all of this post yet... but this is probably because you have Depth of Field set to maximum and ADS DOF enabled.
  25. Everyone told DICE their proposed BTK/TTK changes were bad. They didn't listen. They did it anyway, and now they're pulling a "oh, I guess we'll look at your feedback and see if we need to make revisions." That game is one tone-deaf blunder after another. DICE has become a corporate shell of its former self. I'm ready for WW3 time again. I just wish the bigger servers were back. Though, I guess they wouldn't be that populated with current player counts. But hopefully with some marketing and new content we can get back there.
×
×
  • Create New...