Jump to content

@PRUNKgaming

Recon Unit
  • Content Count

    182
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

@PRUNKgaming last won the day on June 26

@PRUNKgaming had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

238 Private

4 Followers

About @PRUNKgaming

  • Rank
    Master Sergeant

Recent Profile Visitors

844 profile views
  1. Sorry not sorry, this is a WW3 forum about WW3. What Farm51 does with their other games doesn't make up for lack of content updates and community silence.
  2. I'm with DoctorBatman on this one. Around this time last year those same kind of rumors starter circulating - and was quickly shot down as "not happening" by ragir and others I do believe that they are licensed Microsoft developers though
  3. Do you think we'll ever see anymore patches pushed to PTE/Live? I mean does that make sense with the steps they've taken? I reckon the game will just come out one day as full release free to play and we'll see nothing in between now and then
  4. They answered this question during the AMA on discord when people asked what we would get if we purchased the game during early access. If people bought your game via Steam in the Early Access phase for 99pln, what will they get when the game goes F2P, and will it be worth the previous price? Alexey: You’ll definitely keep access to the game, and you’ll receive a rich amount of game content, regardless of our distribution solution (that is still to be announced later this year). To me it seems like they're just going to give us a pre-determined amount of unlockable weapons or cosmetics. Maybe some exclusive stuff. I do believe that all progress will be reset.
  5. Feel free to drop in whenever you want, we're still there daily playing all kinds of games. Work is about to ramp back up for me so I'll be online a little less, but still available for weekend stuff like usual.
  6. I'm 400 hours wasted into the main game, I don't even know how many into the test server, drafted onto their failed community based bug finding team (you don't want to know what we've found wrong with the game that they haven't fixed, and the stuff we did find wrong, we were told wasted their time because they had to go fix it instead of working on other things) and many months passed the deadline we were promised. They told us the game was fully funded before release - then they partner with the European EA games for money. My hopes are cast far from WW3 and F51 I get more excitement eating breakfast than I get from this dead game. "We are watching WW3 transform from a genuinely passionate indie game project into a corporate-run product" DoctorBatman, who I've played with and have known since day one of the early access, sums this up well WW3 is no longer the passion project I believed in. It's what happens when people sell out.
  7. While this is what we've been told, I do notice the downhill trend in updates and communication from the WW3 dev team following the Chernobylite announcement. Coincidence? Maybe yes, maybe no. All I can say for sure is that it's not uncommon for a company to say one thing and mean another - or to just blatantly lie - and considering how my faith and trust in F51 has been betrayed, I'd sooner believe that there aren't separate dev teams than I'd take their word that there is.
  8. They told us the game was fully funded before release and that they could have completed development through to the end without early access funding. Then on top of that they boasted incredible sells of the game that were never reflected in actual in game players. Those incredible sells were followed with a claim that in quarter one, the early access portion of the game cleared over $3,000,000 in revenue. Now if the claim that the game was completely funded before hitting early access was true, this revenue is really just profit. Yet here we are - 6 months passed due from their optimistic deadline and 4 months passed due on their conservative deadline, with news that they've gone to my.games for funding.... It's been suspicious for a long while now and I doubt that any form of development driven by player feedback was an actual objective passed the 0.3 update.
  9. He posted something as recent as three days ago and its been a week since he was pinged here and apparently asked directly by weedtime for some clarity. I'm not saying drop everything and come rushing to the forum. But he's certainly been around and hasn't offered any insight. Damn shame that only one developer seems to be able to answer the question.
  10. Because it's not a feature that's working properly if it's showing as a VAC ban for toxic behavior. @weedtimehas the point I made been addressed? I see that you've tagged @Ragiras well asking for clarity and it's radio silence. The report very clearly reads that consecutive issues with behavior will result in a ban that appears as VAC on steam profiles. Am I reading it wrong? "We will be applying permanent bans that will show up as VAC bans on the Steam profile" The whole thing gets even more confusing with the part highlighted in red that says THIS FORM IS NOT FOR REPORTING CHEATERS and then it's followed up by saying repeat offenses result in a VAC ban on steam. I'll say it again VAC is for players found to be using outside software to cheat. I am totally okay with F51 issuing game bans although I think aspects of the current system could be improved on. I believe that issuing VAC bans for behavior is complete BS and abusive. Seeking clarity on this ASAP and an update to the weekly news if the original post, did in fact, speak wrong.
  11. Thanks for clarifying This needs to be clarified as well. "We will be applying permanent bans that will show up as VAC bans on the Steam profile"
  12. He's literally said they've banned people for toxic behavior. You may not recall any times but they've happened. I know of a few myself. I hadn't seen this article but it still does not justify F51 putting a flag on someone's steam account that is commonly recognized as a brand given to cheaters and hackers, when the offense is toxic behavior. That's like me telling ragir his feet smell, then calling him a racial slur, then talking about his mom and my punishment being a tattoo on my forehead that says "thief" My issues specifically is with the VAC ban "VAC banned accounts can still play single-player games, local LAN games, and multiplayer on non VAC-secured game servers. To find non VAC-secured servers, from the Steam main menu click on View, select Servers, then select Not secure in the Anti-cheat dropdown" My point here is that once VAC banned on steam, your ability to play ALL GAMES ON STEAM is impacted. The above quote spells out that once vac banned, your choice when playing multi player games online is to connect to a server that has no protection against cheaters. Does toxic behavior in WW3 really seem like something that should impact a players overall steam experience, and damn near force them to play multi player games in lobbies basically set aside for cheaters? Again, I repeat myself. That's like me telling ragir his feet smell, then calling him a racial slur, then talking about his mom and my punishment being a tattoo on my forehead that says "thief" Toxic behavior is not cheating, hacking or using outside software. Cheating, hacking and using outside software is what VAC bans are for.
  13. Wasn't there already issues in the past with players being banned by your previous system (and this, by your own words is just a streamlined version) wrongly, because whoever was elected to review the report wasn't able to understand what was going on due to language barrier? Does Farm 51 have any plans of ensuring quality reviews for reports? What are those plans? Will first language, native English speaking review teams be placed in charge of NA reports? What about EU? China? How is this going to be handled? Why was the decision made to add VAC bans to steam accounts for behavior? Does farm 51 believe calling somones mom a fat lard, team killing them and tea-bagging akin to cheating? Tell me exactly how any of those things are similar to installing software that gives you an unfair advantage in game. Does F51 believe removing players from their game for toxic messages in chat a better solution than say, removing their ability to chat in game? Were any alternative options to team killing discussed or considered before implementing a system that bans players for doing so? For example - a very popular modern shooter on the market right now has reflective damage after 2-3 team kills in a match. Surely designing a similar system is better than permanently removing players from your game? If you don't think it's better, I think the community deserves to know why. Alternatively - if you've got another solution to team killing, I'd like to hear it. And I don't think resources or man power are acceptable answers at this point in decision making. You clearly are dedicating resources and man power to the manual review process you've just set up. For reference material pulled straight from steam support page. How can I ensure I don't get VAC banned? To ensure your account does not get VAC banned, use only trusted machines to play on VAC-Secured servers. If you are not sure whether or not the machine you are using to connect to Steam may have cheats installed, do not play on VAC-Secured servers. Use caution when installing any game modifications like scripts or custom skins, and only download custom content from trusted sources. Hackers may maliciously disguise their cheats to cause others to get banned. For more information on how you can protect yourself and your account, please refer to our Account Security Recommendations FAQ. Additional information on Valve's policies can be found in our Steam Subscriber Agreement. Does Farm 51 plan to have steam update their information on VAC bans to include language and in game behavior?
×
×
  • Create New...