Jump to content

Schlagerfreund

Members
  • Content Count

    57
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Schlagerfreund

  1. Pull the game off the stores and re-work it from the ground.
  2. I stay away from all official Discord Server. They are usually terrible places and you would need unreasonable high amounts of moderators just to keep them somewhat in check. This is usually not the case. I would also agree that WW3 got a lot of attention because of BF V and a lot of these people were pretty negative and in some cases downright toxic to begin with. But eventually I disagree with a lot of things you are saying or implying. People are complaining about real and existing issues in the game. They usually complain because they want positive change. You also always have a minority that will complain for the sake of it or because they think it is cool and edgy. I also think it is also a case because a lot of players interested in the game are a bit older and so they have a more experienced look on gaming and the industry. At the end of the day it is all about the industry . When you are younger, you are probably more open to get very emotional over a video game and that usually ends up in "white knighting" a developer or a product. That is unreasonable but somewhat normal. If you pay money for a game that turns out to be bad, it means you made a bad decision as a customer and the human psyche is not great at admitting that you made a mistake that also could have been avoided. This has not much (if anything to do) with the main audience being male, but as I said, I think it is somewhat age related. The fact is that people had high hopes for the game and pretty much all of these hopes were shattered on the very first day of Early Access. So far the developers have been unable to regain the trust that was lost. I have been playing games for over 20 years and I also had some insights in the industry. The most important resource you have as a company that creates games (and this is now more important than ever) is trust and credibility. It is way easier to switch to a different game. I would also argue that since the audience is older there is a different priority. When you are young you usually have not a lot of money, but you have a lot of time. When you are older you usually have more money, but you don't have a lot of time. So you a lot of older people have the ability to buy a full price game each month. So when WW3 landed flat on the face I moved on to play something different. Younger people will most likely have switched to F2P games like Fortnite or now APEX Legends. If both groups dislike a game, they will often not just stop playing it, they will also leave a negative review and also tell their peers about the bad experience they had. This is why trust is the most important resource. From my personal point of view The Devs did nothing to regain any of the lost trust. I would even suggest that it somewhat became worse, even after the terrible launch. If it is possible, I would advise the devs to stop selling the game on stores right now, give everyone the opportunity to get a refund and basically start over again and come back in 6-8 months with something that is actually playable and will not leave a bad impression. At the end of day I think you are overdramatizing a lot here. A company made bad business decisions and the customers are unhappy about it. It is now up the the company if they can salvage the situation or not. Personally I doubt it.
  3. The problem is that these popular streamers give those games usually not a lot attention. Not exactly the fault of the streamer, but it is how it works. They simply cant "afford" to put a lot of time into a single game that is at the best of situations a "side deal" for them. You may also end up with misconceptions because the streamer itself does not know anything about the game. Apart from that the game is right now not in a position where you should expose it to a wide audience.
  4. I personally loathe high TTK games in most FPS since they usually do not reward what I personally like in multiplayer FPS. I have a personal formula in which a player should win a firefight in most situations if You see a player first You aim at the player first Your shoot first and your aim is not off I feel that this is when a player should win a standard firefight and by extension also a squad that works together. Having a high TTK usually means that that players that make clear mistakes can get our of the situation or even turn it around. I think this does not fit in most FPS unless it is something completely different sub-genre. Examples would be Overwatch, Quake, Unreal Tournament etc.. I more or less despise the armor system that we had and somewhat still have, since it basically turns the points I mentioned around. You can survive firefights, just because you picked heavier armor and it also created big issues in the meta game like aiming below the plate. I think that this was way too ambitious and borderline stupid. This game should not try to re-invent where players have to aim at which is usually the center of mass or the head.
  5. Some personal advice. Try to actually read comments of other people and not just try to frantically counter argument anything you don't like. You may end up understanding a different point of view or opinion (which you are then still free to dislike). Not "knowing" a system has literally nothing to do with any sort of skill . This is especially the case when a game is explaining those systems very poorly or not explaining them at all. Otherwise you have a pretty large group of people that will not give a crap about calling in strikes. As I mentioned already, a lot of people will be heavily engaged in their selected role. Meaning they may want to sit on flanks and sniper, hunt armor with rpg's, support their team as a medic etc. The cheese factor comes from the fact that you cam earn the points for it very fast and it is often not really related to the base objectives of a game mode. You end up people playing to get strike X and not to win a round or to contribute with it.
  6. You make it sound like you need some high skill or experience to use them effectively. Spoiler Alert, you don't. Those systems are not deep at all and I don't see a reason why I should pretend otherwise. Apart from that my reason still stands that they are bad for balance and easy to meta-cheese.
  7. @CapybaraPaul That makes it even worse because you put something that is potentially very strong into the hands of 1-3 players of a team. That makes it very unbalanced because you can easily make or break it by something that is not related to the majority of players. You end up in a situation where somebody who does not know those systems well or does not really care (because at the end of the day he wants to shoot people and not cheese-meta around) can effectively play for the other team, just by not using or wasting those assets. That's also why I think most games should only have what I called utility strikes which would be strikes like smoke rounds, scans, jamming etc.
  8. Never liked damage based call in strikes. They usually are unbalanced and don't add anything to the game. It is not fun or engaging to be bombed by something that is not player controlled and it just feels cheap. They also usually "reward" the team that is already winning which makes the round even more frustrating for the other team. People also often figure out how meta point gain and then abuse the crap out of it. I would cheer if all damage based strikes disappear and you can only use utility strikes like the UAV, Jamming and maybe something like smoke rounds.
  9. Artists can obviously still create models etc. It is also often less likely that a model would cause issues in the game (can still happen). So while artists could for example make Models for a MP3, I would still not try to put it into the game now, since all other aspects of that item can cause issues and it would in fact re-direct developer time. in the end it also does not change the fact that the game was released too early to Steam and that the developers continued to make mistakes after the horrible launch.
  10. I would not miss armor not being in the game at all.
  11. Unpopular opinion here I guess. I still find the idea absurd to have a PTE while the game is early access and clearly in early stage of development (if intended or not). The game peaks right now at less than 500 players online at the same time. There are limits at which you can actually test stuff properly and I think we are below this limit. The state of the game is not the cause because we lacked a PTE. This was caused by a rushed release and then developers going into panic mode and rushing out patches.
  12. I would honestly opt for the developer to stop selling this game right now. The game is not in a state (yes and I mean also for a early access game) where it could benefit from any exposure. I think the devs need at least 3 months to bring the game to a state where you could present to on a marketplace. This would mean not working on any more content and just fix and develop what you already have.
  13. Schlagerfreund

    BP

    I think OP does not understand how the system works. The more you add to a tank/vehicle, the more expensive it gets. Otherwise it would be extremely unfair to call in a massively upgraded tank to the same price as a standard one.
  14. Well the "theory" of early access is that the players can test things for you and give you feedback. Apart from that players also act as "free" (they even paid for it) advertisement. They play the game, tell their friends about it and maybe also produce media content for it. All of this requires a certain amount of players. Right now the game certainly does not have these players. So yeah, the game is basically "dead" or maybe unconscious right now and it will be very hard to "revive" the game. My personal opinion is that early access came at least 6 months too early for this game. The developers made some big mistakes and bombed their own game. I am not saying (or hoping) that this is not possible, but it will require a lot of hard work and a massive improvement of the way the developer communicates with their customers. Right now this game fails in pretty much all aspects: Technical foundation is not solid. Aka the game has a lot of bugs and performance issues Lack of Content Bad Communication from the developers to the player base. The devs need to up their game by about 500% to turn this around.
  15. They most likely took a Christmas/New Years break. Pretty sure we will see more activity next week. That said, I still think it was a terrible idea to create a PTE for a game that is in early access and already has a tiny player base. You just split it even further and this will possibly cause more people to stop playing the game.
  16. Since we already have British vests, helmets and voice options, it would be nice to see the following weapons for them: L85A2 (or the A3, which is more or less "just" a facelift. L22A2 L129A1 L110 7.62 LMG L7A2 GPM Otherwise I would like to see some other iconic weapons. SCAR-L SCAR-H HK417 AN-94
  17. Only speaking about in-game facts and experience here. I don't really care about real world examples, since this is a video game. With that said, it also wants to be a bit realistic and claims to be more tactical than other games of the genre like BF and COD. I think that there should be a bigger gap between when it does not make sense to use full auto anymore and switch to single fire. Right now it feels that you can get away with spamming on full auto way too often and in situations in which it should not work that well. That does not mean that single fire is broken at the moment. I have been trying to build something along the lines of a DMR with the G38 and the AK-15 The AK-15 actually works pretty well. You can tap shoot people on medium ranges quite effectively with single fire and still use full auto on the close distances with the sid-mounted optic. The G38 seems to lack power on the medium ranges with its 5.56 ammo. Its not that you cant hit people with it, but you will need way more hits to get somebody down. That means people have a lot of time to react and get out of it. Right now it just feels that the recoil on full auto is way to managable and at the end of the day you put yourself at a disadvantage for not using it all the time. If you get somebody in your sights and you dont miss him the first time, its very easy to stay on target on full auto. Left: Full Auto Middle: 2 Round Burst Right: Single fire Far Right: Pistol
  18. Stop calling everyone you don't agree with toxic. The big irony is that you are the toxic one right now and that you use entitled as a insult. A customer is by definition entitled. Nobody will buy you a beer or pat you on the shoulder for "defending" a game/developer Qoopa rightfully expressed his opinion that the developers have so far not delivered anything in regard to new content and much needed improvements.
  19. Sorry, but those players are also the ones that leave a game very fast. So they are a share of the people who stop playing the game. Apart from that you also still have the silent majority that just stops playing the game without saying anything. The result is the same. Less people are playing the game. It also doesnt matter how much people "love" a game. At the end of a day they also want to play and don't to play on empty servers. This is exactly how a good game dies, even if it could be great in the future.
  20. Stop trying to discredit EVERY critical posts as whining. Its a really cheap and childish tactic. Somebody days something I don't like? Its obviously whining. Feels like you are one of the people who feel that they need to defend a game and the developer of it without any reflection. Spoiler Alert: The devs are not your friends. They will not go out with you on the weekend and buy you a drink. Its a company customer relationship. They want you to buy a product they offer and further support it by playing the game and potentially spending more money for the same product (addons, microtransactions etc.), or something like sequel or simply another separate product of them. Mindlessly defending a game/product is stupid and potentially even harmful to the game. Developers need and want to improve their product. To do this they need feedback from their customers. This also includes negative feedback. Some would even argue that negative feedback is what is really important, since developers usually already know what works in their game, since they had a plan and certain intentions when creating a game and so they are usually already quite aware what the strong points of their game is. People in this and other thread have pointed out valid issues. The major points are the fact that it will split a player base that is already low even further and the discrepancy that early access is already test environment.
  21. And the player base is split even further by dividing the game between a main and a "test" branch. So I guess early access was not for testing and just so make some quick money eh?
  22. Sorry but this is pretty much what they also wrote on Twitter during the launch disaster. All we read are phrases like: perfectly understandable etc. Perfectly understandable that people are angry, refunding the game or stop playing. It's cool that the devs "understand" it but its their job to do something about. I have yet to fully see them fulfill that obligation.
  23. The recoil is fine to me in that regard. The issue I see is that single fire is too weak on longer ranges because of the armor system.
  24. I only made a very basic and short test. It only takes the speed on a short distance into account. Time from the start to the door was: Light - 3.21 Sec Medium - 3.88 Sec Heavy - 4.36 Sec
×
×
  • Create New...