Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Hallo a friend and I love to play WW3, we joined i guess at a very early stage and never really abended the game, even in the hard times...

 

but as we talk about the "new stuff" that were implemented in the game, we came to that point that the game is not heading in the direction of the beginning and what the dev original said what kind of game they want.

 

World War 3 is a casual shooter, not hardcore, no mil sim. Has a casual and fast gameplay like BF3/4 but is way more in the detail in damage model, weapon handling, Armor and teamplay like no other shooters on the market.

IT IS

UNIQUE

 

as it was earlier:

 

    damage model:

        skill based gameplay, you better you aim and the better you position that higher is your chance to win the fight

        damage is exact and on point

        net code is so extreme smooth and pretty

 

    weapon handling:

        at first sight you get overwhelmed by the things you can customize but after playing the a few rounds you will see that only a few weapons are good to go.

 

    Armor:

        decided how you want to act on the field if you want to tank and be support fighter or be fast and flank the enemy lines.

 

    teamplay:

        you must connect 2 flags to win the game

        it is necessary to have one guy in the squad with ammo/meds/equipment to get you squad running.

        drop a flying eye to keep the point clear and save

         work together to get the tank, disturb it, confuse it and then get him

        kills don’t matter, get the connection

 

as it is right now:

    damage model:

        it is extreme casual cause the time to kill is insane high, first shoot gets the kill, no chance to avoid damage and no need of skill.

        damage is extremely inconsistent and at some point, just random

 

    weapon handling:

        at first sight you get overwhelmed by the things you can customize but after playing the a few rounds you will see that only a few weapons are good to go. (nothing changed)

 

    Armor:

        is now totally useless, Armor is just slowing you down.

 

    teamplay:

        404 not found and not wanted it looks for me

        it is not necessary to have one guy in the squad with ammo/meds/equipment, because it is on every flag.

        you don’t need to make a flying eye just nuke them only cost 100 bucks more

        don’t need to work together to get the tank, just nuke it

        implementing a Helicopter that is not able to get a connection or support the team in any form.


 

as you see I think the game is losing his soul, his heart, the core mechanics that makes it unique and not a normal copy of Battlefield 4.

I am asking me the question am I playing it wrong when I play in team, because it looks for me the dev´s don’t want us to do so.

Other question is the game heading in the direction the dev´s want their game or are they just pushing it to be more casual to get more and more players.

Am i the only one of the veterans who think so?

 

The game as it was, was exactly what I searched for, but nowadays I'm not sure if it still is and if it ever will be again....

 

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You pretty much nailed the first half, except the servers went to shit. No offence F51

2 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

it is extreme casual cause the time to kill is insane high, first shoot gets the kill, no chance to avoid damage and no need of skill.

 

        damage is extremely inconsistent and at some point, just random

Would mostly agree with this; but only in close quarters battles. Shotguns reign supreme and high fire rate is a must. But somehow it feels like enemies can see me before I see them. Low TTK is not casual at all, Games like COD have an insanely high TTK on some weapons
Long range is pretty much random, bullet spread is small but definitely there, scope sway on high magnifications is too high and proning / bipods don't change that as if now. 

For me, I play on EU servers and have always 50+ms ping even though I live in the Netherlands, right next to where the servers are supposed to be. But I still feel like I get behind a SOLID wall from a building and then still get hit through said wall (I can see the tracers coming through the wall) But I can probably blame all the American players who migrated to EU servers
image.png.83d8a3e6507ca40833adf2093ca92793.png according to this servers are located either in England or maybe The Netherlands

 

2 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

Armor:

 

        is now totally useless, Armor is just slowing you down.

People learned that it's more effective to aim above the armor or shoot you in the back.

2 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

teamplay:

 

        404 not found and not wanted it looks for me

Yup, almost no one follows objective and gadget orders. Can't wait for Voip to be ready.

 

2 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

it is not necessary to have one guy in the squad with ammo/meds/equipment, because it is on every flag.

It's on every flag, because people wouldn't give you ammo/health/equipment. Still in development and they are looking for a better alternative

2 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

you don’t need to make a flying eye just nuke them only cost 100 bucks more

What strike? Hellfire to Mephisto costs range from 1500 BP to 6k (formerly 8k)...
But I do agree I see a whole lot more Hellfire strikes since the Free Weekend, since that strike is in the default loadouts and people thought they were good/fun.

2 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

don’t need to work together to get the tank, just nuke it

Everyone carries RPGs nowadays, tanks feel claustrophobic in all of the maps imo.

2 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

implementing a Helicopter that is not able to get a connection or support the team in any form.

Same as MBTs (Tanks) IFVs and other armor, the heli drone is supposed to be supporting the team, it's not very effective on it's own. Drones can be easily taken down, but only if EVERYBODY shoots it.

3 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

The game as it was, was exactly what I searched for, but nowadays I'm not sure if it still is and if it ever will be again....

Well the game is still good, but somehow lost it's touch. Teamwork is absent, everyone runs around going only for kills instead of objectives. I also would like to see more content drops and teasers of what's to come for the next patch. A new weapon is only interesting for a while. It's the main reason I'm so active on the suggestions forum, I love fantasising about new weapons, strikes and mechanics and how they would impact the game. Dev Streams would also be very interesting and would also be useful for answering some questions in the chat and communicating with the community.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I don't want this to be a rant as there is a lot of things done right in this game and it is still in development.

13 hours ago, Erzkrieger said:

   teamplay:

 

        404 not found and not wanted it looks for me

This is my biggest problem atm.

Every game has teamplayers and lonewolfs. If you want a easy accessible game which connects with a lot of people you want to please both of these groups.

Right now it is heavily shifted towards the lonewolf gameplay.

There is nearly no reason to play together, no mechanic which allows you to play together and the few things that did boost teamplay got heavily nerfed.

You don't need to stick together other than generating more points for strikes.

 

Equipment:

You don't have a classs system but you can pick different equipment packs which was once a incentive to stick together as you need health, ammo and other packs to stay in the fight.

This was totally removed as you can get those on every capture point and you can just run around with meds. You don't need anyone at all to stay in the fight (favours lonewolfs, discourages teamplay).

Points:

This is the only thing where you can see a difference if you play alone or on a squad. You generate more BP but again you don't need your squad to generate a valid amount of points. You can easily get 2 mephistos, 2-4 tanks and a shitton of bombing runs if you go alone. So much in general that again I don't see a lot of people following orders cause they simply don't need to. (good for lonewolfs, good for teamplay)

Vehicles:

I rarely see someone playing 2 man tank squad as you don't need it to be effective. Yes someone in the rcws is nice to have but 95% of the power of the tank (100% for certain turrets like the 30mm BMPT27) comes from the driver. Drones fall into the no teamwork section as well because obvious reasons. (favours lonewolfs, weak teamplay capability)

Spawn:

The Squadleader is just another spawnpoint. You don't get anything from spawning on your squad (Less respawn time or something). Just spawn somewhere cause it doesn't matter. (favours lonewolfs, weak teamplay capability).

Weapons:

 This is more a design choice of the devs as you don't have a class system with specific weapons everyone can have any weapon. So you don't need to specialize in your squad who has the anti tank weapons, long range, short range etc. cause everyone has every weapon anyway. This is per se not a problem as the game is designed this way but again it discourages teamplay as you can master any situation yourself without needing your teammates. (favours lonewolfs, discourages teamplay)

 

I would just give everything to have some kind of teamplay/interaction between players. If you give me a support strike which changes my character to a full medic who only can walk, has 0 armor and only a pistol but can at least heal/get people up or anything I would play him just because I grave some teamplay mechanics.

Or a tank where you can only drive and another one shoots. You get 0 kills the entire game and have a KD of -20 I would still go for it.

Just something... anything.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

We should arrange a test: 3 good squads vs 15 good lone wolves.

I'm fairly confident the first team will win 95% of the times.

Winning should be a nice incentive to favor teamplay and it is how WW3 works (in War Zone).

3 hours ago, Fullback said:

The Squadleader is just another spawnpoint. You don't get anything from spawning on your squad (Less respawn time or something). Just spawn somewhere cause it doesn't matter.

Game is about capturing points. Good squad leaders move close (or inside) the objective allowing 4 other players to spawn close (or inside) the objective, instead of forcing them to run for 100 meters with enemies around.

If you were in my squad and you just spawn "somewhere" cause you think it does not matter, i'll gladly kick you out from the squad the very next respawn.

3 hours ago, Fullback said:

You don't need to stick together other than generating more points for strikes.

What about having better chances to capture a point? And win?

Like generating more BP is nothing worthy. As a squad, we have UAV and JAMMER (strikes you never mentioned) on every location we attack, every time. For all the game. Quite handy.

As squad leader i have the luxury of calling my squad mates for the best UAVs and Jammers whenever i want and still saving my BP for the most expensive strikes. In 45 minutes a good squad have spent all the BP gained, there is no "more than enough" BP if you want to win and use strikes as much as possible in a good way.

I could go on, but i think i made my point.

I don't need game mechanics that forces me to cooperate. If good teamplay is crucial to win the match, it's more than enough for me.

...

That being said, i consider myself lucky because i play with friends most of the times, we have teamspeak, so play (and learn) together is easy this way.

The game do nothing to teach how much important teamplay is in WW3. No tutorials, no VOIP, no media at all. I learned myself a lot of mechanics because there are no wiki or other learning tools anywhere (and who knows how many i still have to learn).

Community is not very active, recruiting is almost absent and everyone that is a newcomer has to move into the game alone and with no help. So lone wolf is the only choice available to start with. Is not even intuitive to learn, because most FPS today are battle royale, or "kill to win" kind of  game mechanics.

With not much players actually ingame, is not an easy task to find friends and play together. Low player count/low interest is what is killing the game right now imho.

Edited by Ziogualty
added: and who knows how many i still have to learn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Ziogualty said:

Like generating more BP is nothing worthy. As a squad, we have UAV and JAMMER (strikes you never mentioned) on every location we attack, every time. For all the game. Quite handy.

I do agree with you that you can notice a good difference in BP and the ability to call in strikes (Jammers etc.). And you can make some good gameplay with that and have fun for some time.  But the problem is that is one of few ways you can really have teamplay. You run around get to objectives, set a uav and a jammer and capture it. Rinse and repeat. Sometimes kill some people with a strike maybe even a tank.

Do you need you squadmates to take specific roles to win? Do you need a ammo guy or someone with reconnaissance equipment? The 2 playerpacks you need right now are med pack and maybe equipment bag if you want to engage a tank out of a objective area.

Do you have some interaction between the squad? You help kill stuff together but thats it, every action the squadmate does a equally skilled blueberry can do as well.

Kill together, more people = more chance to take the objective , I agree but you don't need the squad for that. In a lot of matches you can see a big blob of people just running in a circle to capture points and the enemy team has the same blob. Weirdly enough those blobs rarely encounter each other. 

1 hour ago, Ziogualty said:

Game is about capturing points. Good squad leaders move close (or inside) the objective allowing 4 other players to spawn close (or inside) the objective, instead of forcing them to run for 100 meters with enemies around.

If it works that you can spawn on each other ;) (thats just a bug I know).

Seriously tho the distances between capture points are not that big that you can't get into the action within 15 seconds. As a coordinated squad via discord and everything of course people will spawn on you. Try that with randoms. See how many spawn on you. Why? Cause they don't see any benfit in doing so if they can just do it themselfs nearly as good as you do.

Distances makes transport vehicles not very viable as well. How often did you have the thought "damn I could use someone with a transport vehicle right now"?

 

If you have friends on discord of course you can make teamplay by running together and killing together + strikes (as infantry not vehicles). But what more? What can you do more than that?

I think voip will alleviate some of these problems greatly but still I would love some more teamplay mechanics.

Edited by Fullback

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Fullback hope you are not NA. If you are EU, i would really like to invite you playing together and let you see what i mean by doing it together! (steam: Ziogualty).

It's not just rinse and repeat, there is an enemy team on the other side that spices things up.

And winning (with Squad Leader as top score) has a sweet taste! 

I love to see my squad at the end of the round dancing and flexing on the main screen! ;)

See you on the Battlefield!

Edited by Ziogualty
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree in some points with @Erzkrieger, @Matt_dOvale and @Fullback.

I think teamplay has suffered somwhat from the introduction of the resupply stations and I would propose to remove them entirely from the CPs. Alternatively there could be 1 resupply station per capping zone (i.e. there would three instead of six stations). Then one would have more crucial points to fight for but this is just a raw idea. The other alternative I like would be @Dunabar's suggestion of making the resupply station a strike.

When the ammo bug was a thing and ammo was scarce people sticked together more methodically I would say, because they were forced to.

Also I'd say you earn points to fast/strikes are too cheap. It doesn't feel that special to use them because they are so abundant.

Like Fullback I would prefer if one would need more than one player for the full effectiveness of vehicles. Splitting the driver and gunner apart might be too much but what about decreasing the field of view especially of an MBT by a significant margin so that you have to rely on the player using the RCWS for information and scouting?

Although the performance of the game if better than ever performance wise it seems that the servers are worse than they have been for a long time - at least it seems to me like that. Super bullets from high ROF weapons are the rule rather than the exception. If somebody shoots me with an SA 80, a G36, a SIG or Vityaz I usually die instantly despite having full health. Of course it could be, that this is only my experience but it would add to what Erzkrieger said about "first hit wins". People often have literally no time to react. On top of that the servers seem to be somewhat laggy despite showing low pings.

Lastly I am with Matt that scope way on higher powered scopes makes long range fights pretty random. Than on the other hand you can transition from a crazy fast full sprint to ads in virtually no time and have full accuracy while the animation lags behind and your gun is till pointing down.

The last two paragraphs are only indirectly related to Erzkrieger's topic but I think the randomness in firefights also adds to the feeling of the game losing its soul.

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, HeiligeRobbe said:

When the ammo bug was a thing and ammo was scarce people sticked together more methodically I would say, because they were forced to.

That's a fking long time ago lol, even though it sucked teamplay was pretty much mandatory.

8 minutes ago, HeiligeRobbe said:

On top of that the servers seem to be somewhat laggy despite showing low pings

Right? Sometimes I even feel like people with higher pings have an advantage over you because you literally didn't see them and then they appear when you have already taken 2+ bullets to the chest, with a third one taking your life.

10 minutes ago, HeiligeRobbe said:

Lastly I am with Matt that scope way on higher powered scopes makes long range fights pretty random. Than on the other hand you can transition from a crazy fast full sprint to ads in virtually no time and have full accuracy while the animation lags behind and your gun is till pointing down.

I hope they think of a fix for this soon, this also adds to the fact that sometimes people's reaction times seem so incredibly fast, even when you were already aiming down waiting for them because radar/footsteps. It's so unfair at times

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The supply points are an early iteration, it's likely we'll reduce their amount in the future.

Keeping a close eye on this thread, please continue.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, HeiligeRobbe said:

I think teamplay has suffered somwhat from the introduction of the resupply stations and I would propose to remove them entirely from the CPs. Alternatively there could be 1 resupply station per capping zone (i.e. there would three instead of six stations). Then one would have more crucial points to fight for but this is just a raw idea. The other alternative I like would be @Dunabar's suggestion of making the resupply station a strike.

Personally I would like to see it like this: one set of packs are distributed each time a point gets fully captured, and they don't regenerate until the same point gets captured by the other team. The reason I say this is because, more often than not, the team that attacks a CP has a huge advantage, not only because of some server issues that promote peeking and rushing (I am aware this will hopefully be fixed with 0.7) but because they can organise to have an MRAP or squad leader nearby to help spawn players on the point before the defending team even knows they're there. If only one set of packs are available per capture, then this would force the team that is attacking to carry gadgets that resupply as they will be stuck with what they've got until they can get a cap.

I feel like part of the problem with this game is the anti camping map design that I have seen mentioned earlier. Although this may have benefits for [redacted], it means that in Warzone players are often unable to see if there are enemies attacking a point because the major sightlines have been blocked by pieces of cover. For this reason I would love to see at least one map that is more open, so that the meta can change between maps.

8 hours ago, Fullback said:

Distances makes transport vehicles not very viable as well. How often did you have the thought "damn I could use someone with a transport vehicle right now"?

For this reason as well, I think it would be interesting to experiment with maps that have singular points to control, rather than having to control two to have a full set. A lot of the time in game, even though it may seem like a good idea to defend A1 (using Polyarny as an example), you're just as well off moving to A2 instead because the work required to coordinate transporting a team over most of the map is much harder than having a few lone wolves set up camp on A2. The enemy team, having captured A1, will then rush towards A2, as there are a few routes you can go through that minimise the sight lines on you. However, by the time that team makes it over to A2, the defenders have already set up camp and can usually take out the attacking players with other teammates capping A1 without any enemies to defend.

 

4 hours ago, HeiligeRobbe said:

Although the performance of the game if better than ever performance wise it seems that the servers are worse than they have been for a long time - at least it seems to me like that. Super bullets from high ROF weapons are the rule rather than the exception. If somebody shoots me with an SA 80, a G36, a SIG or Vityaz I usually die instantly despite having full health. Of course it could be, that this is only my experience but it would add to what Erzkrieger said about "first hit wins". People often have literally no time to react. On top of that the servers seem to be somewhat laggy despite showing low pings.

Lastly I am with Matt that scope way on higher powered scopes makes long range fights pretty random. Than on the other hand you can transition from a crazy fast full sprint to ads in virtually no time and have full accuracy while the animation lags behind and your gun is till pointing down.

Warzone right now seems to favour mid to short range combat because of both of these factors, and it does detract from the overall experience. Because such combat is really just a comparison of a few factors like reaction time and ping, combat around many points is relatively base. Defending a point is for the most part limited to having a few guys with ARs watching the 2-3 angles that enemy players can attack from, and attackers can win if they either have enough players to overwhelm, a vehicle, or players that are slightly better. If there are at any time points like the Charlies on Warsaw that may allow for longer distance fire, they are dominated by vehicles and snipers in a similar way. What I would love to see is some points built like the area B2 on Smolensk. This area, while still supporting the same short range combat, provides enough avenues of attack that to control the point, attacking or defending, you need teamwork. The distance between cover and the shape of cover is just right in that it encourages the use of grenades and gadgets, and there are no easy points of domination. Overall, warzone can a lot of the time feel like trying to spread too little butter over too much bread, and I'm hoping fixing the server issues and increasing player counts will fix this.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, nubbits said:

I'm hoping fixing the server issues and increasing player counts will fix this.

We just had a stress test on PTE yesterday, 20v20 seems to be the best for both clients and players. At least for the small Warzone maps, big Warzone will most likely have 30v30 players as of now. Performance goes down a little bit but for me balanced settings gave a solid 90fps.

9 hours ago, nubbits said:

For this reason I would love to see at least one map that is more open, so that the meta can change between maps.

I read one of the moderators replies which stated that the old maps might be getting a rework of some sort, so be looking forward to that. I just hope tanks and other vehicles can move more freely in said maps. Actually, all maps, tanks feel claustrophobic in all maps for me.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

One interesting thing that ive notice everyone complain about in every game is lack of teamwork. You cannot force people to coordinate in any way if they dont want to. DICE ran into this issue with BFV with attrition and the teamwork there was just to press E. Heck even in games like r6 and csgo it's hard to get 5 to coordinate. A large pub game has no chance. 

TEAMWORK IS A CHOICE, NOT A GAME DESIGN PEOPLE. GET IT INTO YOUR HEADS NOW. If you want teamwork then squad up with 4 friends and do it in a squad to the best of your ability. Heck get 7 mates and fill up 2 squads. The devs can only lay mechanics and lead players to water, they cant make them drink.

This is why when 1 team has any form of teamwork they end up raping the other team which is another result that everyone attributes to bad game design.

Edited by jabbothehut

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, jabbothehut said:

TEAMWORK IS A CHOICE, NOT A GAME DESIGN PEOPLE

Tell that to Arma, Squad, Post Scriptum, Hell Let Loose, Insurgency, Insurgency: Sandstorm and SWAT. You can't accomplish anything without teamwork, communication and coordination, The team which is better at it always wins the game.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Matt_dOvale said:

Tell that to Arma, Squad, Post Scriptum, Hell Let Loose, Insurgency, Insurgency: Sandstorm and SWAT. You can't accomplish anything without teamwork, communication and coordination, The team which is better at it always wins the game.

True but those games are significantly more hardcore/realistic than what we aim for. 

We're still adding in features and mechanics that were missing since launch. You may say the game is "losing its identity" but what was at release wasn't even the final identity we aimed for anyway - With mechanics still adjusting it will take some more time before the core experience will finaly solidify. We might have done things differently in terms of launch from today's perspective, but what's done is done.

Important thing to note is that we never adjusted anything with the intention of "dumbing down" the experience. Many of the changes you see are us finishing up and slowly polishing WW3. The game lacked a lot of simple quality of life elements, but some of them seemed to add to the gameplay's depth, as silly as that seems. Case in point: Bugged ammo resupply caused a huge need for ammo packs, which led to increased temwork element.


Expect a lot of gameplay touch-ups to come once the new movement system is done, we're still iterating and nothing is set in stone. E.g. damage model/armor system will probably get another pass, weapon attachments are currently being rebalanced with bigger customizability and role-fitting in mind, amount and location of supply points will likely be reduced (it's possible they'll be removed from cap points altogether and added as separate points of interest), teamwork is likely to get a closer look as well.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I want to add that despite above criticism I have tons of fun with the game. Today I played the first time with a squad of friends and they all had a blast  

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Borreh said:

True but those games are significantly more hardcore/realistic than what we aim for. 

Just pointing out teamwork CAN in fact be game design

 

18 minutes ago, Borreh said:

weapon attachments are currently being rebalanced with bigger customizability

This mean we can put other stuff on the top rails?

Afbeeldingsresultaat voor squad new m4a1image.thumb.png.ded0a46313397653070659778b7c90f1.png

 

All in all I'm not complaining, the game is still fun, but get frustrating sometimes. Especially when asking teammates for meds etc and not getting any because either they're selfish, deaf or just don't get the message on their screen.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Of course teamwork can be a game design choice, but we don't want to sacrifice the gameplay tempo and accesibility we have now. Yes, teamwork needs more work (this sentence hurts) but we don't want it to be as important as it is in Squad et cetera, where you can't have fun without constant communication and a well-organized team.

Per attachments: I've meant the balance, not their implementation. Putting attachments on the top rail is a cool feature but I doubt we'll have the time to do it in the foreseable future (you never know tho). Currently we're working on a new attachment balance that will put focus on specializing your weapon for specific roles, e.g. CQB/secondary, main universal, long-range etc., with a bigger weight difference between different builds. We're still early into this iteration but you should see more options as viable than before. Some attachments will also have bigger impact than others, e.g. the barrel length will be the prime defining factor of your preffered engagment distance, with short and long barrels offering specific and noticable pros and cons for different situations.

Edited by Borreh
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate the new ammo care system in the capture points, I thought it better to ask the allies. Otherwise no games d equipped if you can heal and take ammo capture area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, still cool.

Feels like a widely requested feature I've read all over the place ;), just like the Red Dot Magnifier thing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
34 minutes ago, Borreh said:

Of course teamwork can be a game design choice, but we don't want to sacrifice the gameplay tempo and accesibility we have now. Yes, teamwork needs more work (this sentence hurts) but we don't want it to be as important as it is in Squad et cetera, where you can't have fun without constant communication and a well-organized team.

There are different level of Teamplay in games. Some like Arma requires a lot of passion and almost "real-life" coordination. WW3 level of teamplay is quite mild compared to some of the games i saw mentioned on this 3d.

The perfect blend of fun/accessibility and teamplay i  ever seen in a videogame is Planetside 2. You can make 48 players platoons (yes more than one platoon), or play alone and even if level of scale and achievement is different, it's always fun no matter what. Public squads/platoons are always available, and the game has ton of tools to tease you to join and experience the game with others.

The major obstacle of teamplay in WW3 is just the player base: we are so few and so scattered around the planet that even recruiting is dead, people just don't even try. Game does not help (no "looking for group" option, cannot join friends through Steam, not even a server ID to join mates, etc) and no one bother to put some effort leading random squads (when i play solo i found 90% of the times squad leader that give zero orders, and people don't always follow because they don't know or don't care).

Teamplay in WW3 is not rocket science. Problem is that most of the people never had the chance to play in a good squad, and frankly i guess they don't even see any reason to do that, considering that detailed info about it are nowhere to be found at all.

Edited by Ziogualty
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Borreh said:

Of course teamwork can be a game design choice, but we don't want to sacrifice the gameplay tempo and accesibility we have now. Yes, teamwork needs more work (this sentence hurts) but we don't want it to be as important as it is in Squad et cetera, where you can't have fun without constant communication and a well-organized team.

Yeah sure i am totaly on your side, it should not be as in Squad et cetera that you MUST communication and play in a well-organized team...

But it definitely should, and you should be rewarded for doing it (faster Battle Points, team play points, last but not least win the match...)

The other thing as

17 hours ago, Ziogualty said:

The major obstacle of teamplay in WW3 is just the player base: we are so few and so scattered around the planet that even recruiting is dead, people just don't even try. Game does not help (no "looking for group" option, cannot join friends through Steam, not even a server ID to join mates, etc) and no one bother to put some effort leading random squads (when i play solo i found 90% of the times squad leader that give zero orders, and people don't always follow because they don't know or don't care).

and the hidden problem is, that the dev should worried about, is if there is no teamplay aspect in the game nobody will form clans.

Clans are the only thing BF3/4 is still alive, there is no new content coming, no new balancing thing, etc.

Clans are buying Servers to set them to their conditions and playing on them all day long for years.

Clans getting player´s to play the game for much longer time then lone wolves ever would.

I played BF4 thousands of hours and only a few of them alone cause the long-time motivation is not new content, not balancing and another stuff, it was my buddy´s, it was the clan

 

 

I really hope you get the core massage of this hole discussion.

It's not that the game is in a bad technical condition and that's why it's not fun.(random damage, server lags, less content,... this is all just work in progress issues)

The main problem is the Teamplay mechanics and the reward for doing teamwork.

They are

simply not there or nerfed to death.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Borreh said:

Of course teamwork can be a game design choice, but we don't want to sacrifice the gameplay tempo and accesibility we have now. Yes, teamwork needs more work (this sentence hurts) but we don't want it to be as important as it is in Squad et cetera, where you can't have fun without constant communication and a well-organized team.

39 minutes ago, Erzkrieger said:

Yeah sure i am totaly on your side, it should not be as in Squad et cetera that you MUST communication and play in a well-organized team...

Wasn't suggesting this game should be like that, I was literally just pointing it out to jabbothehut...

It would be very nice to let players realize BP are earned 5 times faster when the whole squad is at one capp point.

 

42 minutes ago, Erzkrieger said:

 

I really hope you get the core massage of this hole discussion.

If teamwork is rewarded, the game will survive longer because clans are gonna play it hardcore

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 час назад, Erzkrieger сказал:

The main problem is the Teamplay mechanics and the reward for doing teamwork.

 

They are

simply not there or nerfed to death

WAT? I'm starting to think that we are playing different games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Something I want to ask: I've noticed that the reward for following squad leaders orders highlights in Green, the same colour as the currency for buying weapons/attachments etc.  

Does this mean the only way to earn money is to follow Squad Leader orders? Because that would be one hell of an incentive to reward team play for those that are interested in it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 минут назад, ExInferis сказал:

Something I want to ask: I've noticed that the reward for following squad leaders orders highlights in Green, the same colour as the currency for buying weapons/attachments etc.  

Does this mean the only way to earn money is to follow Squad Leader orders? Because that would be one hell of an incentive to reward team play for those that are interested in it.

Ur overall amount of BPs earned in match * 0.4 = amount of currency u'll have after the match. Digits are green I think only because it's the most "calm" colour that can be used to emphasize the points for teamwork.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...