Jump to content
Ragir

Weekly Report #2 - We need your help POLL

What should we focus on now?  

155 members have voted

This poll is closed to new votes
  1. 1. What should we focus on now?

    • Bugfixing, stability, optimization - fix it now, add stuff later
      133
    • New content and features - add stuff now, fix it later
      22

  • Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.
  • Poll closed on 03/17/2019 at 10:59 PM

Recommended Posts

Nobody want a nice game which he can not play (it's a game not movie),the game already won title "Battlefield killer"  for me and much more others there is no options only 

1 Slow down, fix bugs and optimize - to be from best game to legendary game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I voted for bug-fixing, stability, and optimization and read through the responses before posting. I was never quite great at FPS games, but managed to handle myself in some games. With WW3 and with an FX 8350 / GTX 1050, I was really bummed out when I had constant frame issues which really posed problems playing a shooter game like this where split-second decisions between living/dying matters. I've only upgraded my GFX card to an RX 580, but I noticed I still had similar frame issues and again, was pretty bummed out. I know I'm not the only one who has low/entry-level gaming hardware and I do believe that if bugs, game stability, and game optimizations were prioritized, previous players and new players (with a little bit of marketing) would come back or join into WW3. I hope that WW3 can be something to recommend to my friends again if the bug-fixing, stability, and optimizations do go through. The gameplay can be fun when there aren't limitations holding many players back, so that is where my vote will go. :)

Edit: Just wanted to edit and say with some tweaking of the game's GFX settings, a mixture of medium/low, I actually was able to enjoy a couple matches on the NA server with no real frame issues. I might not have had 60+ frames constantly, but I had a smooth enough and enjoyable enough time which is all I could have asked for. Not sure if there was a really recent patch/update, but regardless, glad that the game has been improved since my previous/futile attempts previously!

Edited by Ravose

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 Fix what you have now and people will enjoy playing.   Add to much content without a good player experience and later you will lose players and have a cluster ???? on your hands.  To me, the game needs stability and optimization ASAP and I will enjoy playing as is.  Adding content later would be a smarter move.

Edited by Shooterhl

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

1,5. I think you can't just ignore the bugs, but also cant do a second dayz (i mean the developing time)

 

And more maps

Edited by LevKing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that game needs about 2-3 more maps in all modes and maybe one more quicker mode to keep community interested. Every other addon should be postponed till most bugs are fixed.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

DEFINITELY work on bugs and optimization now. I am a fan of PUBG, and play it for quite a while now.  I can tell what rushing content over quality leads to. You need to sort out your codes, and optimization right now, because while when you optimize now, content is easy to add later, but like in case of pubg, if you spaghetti code now everythings, its going to be a very long and hard process of fixing the game. I am happy with whats now in the game (altough I am saving money for new content already), but please, learn from competition games like PUBG or Rainbow six siege (quite some time after release) and focus on bulding solid and good foundation for your content. In the end, it doesnt matter how much cool tanks you have in game, if noone can even drive then because of 2 fps experience. And right now, even though I have 1060 6gb (and old ass i5 cpu 😧 ) The game is working abysmal, especially in warzone. You are doing steps, and I am so glad that you are asking questions like that to community, because that means that you are actually listening to us (unlike others "we listen to you, and do it our way anyway" way)

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I don't care about bugz. I don't see any gamebreaking bugs. For me. Plus, I don't rly care about new weapons. I have my Pecheneg and MSBS-B and don't rly need all other guns.  But there are 2 things that keep bothering me.

Maps. I'm a little tired with current maps. I've found it when I rolled all over the Berlin with destroyed optics and nothing stopped me. I almost can run now with closed eyes. Ppl saying something about Smolensk map being bad etc. I don't see them playing. ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つGiff it back!

Give us more maps or let us play current in other way. Dunno is it hard to implement but why don't u do "floating zone" Warzone. I mean, u've made Warzone LARGE maps. BUT! For last two months we are playing Warzone normal. And in the same time u can fit almost two normal Warzones in 1 WZ Large map. Why don't u split 1 WZ Large map in 2 different warzones?

For example Berlin.

20190311202924_1.jpg.0a1d0bcbf0641cb8476db7ef27dca345.jpg

We can fit 1 Warzone map in the middle and left side on the WZ Large map(green line). And the novelty of this map will be firefights in the park. All WW3 maps are urban warzones and only one map with trees was Smolensk, that is now not accesible. Or we can use the right side of the map(red line), and those, who play TDM, will say that it'll be good for CQC firefights map, but(!) it'll be Warzone and not simple TDM. And there will be even undeground part with metro station. Left - trees, right - metro. And finally. We can turn map 90 degrees(see yellow line with quadrants as bases) and we will see that now two opposing sides are fighting for highway. Middle of the map is perfect for vehicular combat, but enemies can allways be flanked by infantry. With this each map can be seen from a new angle and have some "fresh air" in them.

And second thing. Optimization. In 0.5 PTE on empty or almost empty server my FPS are 15-20 higher than they are in 0.4 version. But I didn't play on fully populated server, so can't say waht it will be. Because in 0.4 my fps on full sever drop to 30-40 and sometimes even less. I checked my CPU and GPU. CPU utilization 40-60%. And 1st from top is GPU. I don't know what are these drops to almost 0% but I don't like them. I want game to run smoothly and don't rly care 10 or 20 guns are available.

HardwareMonitoring.thumb.jpg.98729f174f76a2c92dd72bf16e409642.jpg

So, resuming. I'm all for optimization IF(!) it can be done once and for all and wouldn't need much attention later.

Edited by tynblpb
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

IMHO game need more content, more maps and game modes. When U finish the contetnt ( that U want to be done  before release final version ) than focus on the bugs & stability, cause probably U will need to fix the same errors with the new content & this could take much more amond of time.

  • Angry 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The only correct answer is both. Why would you stop adding features in Alpha? That is literally what it is for by definition. Then on the other end of the spectrum, why would you not pay any attention at all to bug fixing, optimization and stability and leave it for one big pile to deal with later?

 

The poll itself is very concerning.

Edited by Sternzy
Spelling
  • Angry 1

Share this post


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

The only correct answer is both. Why would you stop adding features in Alpha? That is literally what it is for by definition. Then on the other end of the spectrum, why would you not pay any attention at all to bug fixing, optimization and stability and leave it for one big pile to deal with later?

 

The poll itself is very concerning.

It's not like there is limited manpower in a dev team, absurd.

Edited by aceb20

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1. Bugfixing, stability, optimization - fix it now
2. Marketing which increase in the number of soldiers
3. add stuff later
4. world premiere with great success
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bugs/Crashes -> next optimization -> new content ;) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I hated most about Battlefield and other games was the bugs. BF4 was unplayable for me for the first year it was released. I still don't really touch the game. I know this game can be better than any Battlefield if the devs just stick to fixing up the game before releasing more features. You can already do a lot with the game now anyway, why do you need more when it can always be done in the future? It makes the most sense to have a stable working product before you start adding anything to it. That goes for anything product, not just video games.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I personally cannot vote on the matter, though it looks like the optimization one is ultimately going to win. But, I cannot vote on the matter simply because I can see the argument for both answers. There is no point in optimizing the game right now as new content added will just break it, thus wasting a lot of time, and this is early access which is the time to be adding new stuff. But, if the game is unplayable in the exact (non-hyperbolic) sense of the word, than adding new content doesn't amount to anything if nobody can play it. So, if I could choose an option C, I would go with a option C that is like this-

  1. Whatever new content is halfway completed, push it to live when it's fully completed, or completed enough that future work can wait. There is no reason to leave halfway completed work halfway completed just for optimization that would be broken as soon as the content goes live.
  2. Focus on a reasonable amount of bug crushing and optimizing (reasonable being whatever you (the Developers) deem reasonable) without doing a massive amount of work that is going to go to waste after 1 new content update.
  3. Test the waters from there to see if more Optimizing/Bug Crushing is the way to go, or if it's time for new content to enhance the game.

While I doubt that was helpful in any sort of way. I just cannot see a painless choice in either path, and honestly I suspect People will just switch their complaints in the future. People complaining now about Bugs/Optimization will later be complaining about a lack of content, then the People complaining about a lack of content now will be complaining about a lack of bug fixes/optimization, and then it will flip again in the future. I may be wrong of course, but we will see. In the end though, I'm sticking with WW3 regardless which path is taken.

Edited by Dunabar
Minor enhancement to the post
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

make the game stable and then worry about adding more content. Most of the complains that i have seen aren't about content its about optimization and bug fixes. while i haven't really been affected by many bugs, i'm fully aware they exist, so fix them and give yourself a stable base. Once you have a strong and stable base, add content from there. Now of course this is after you push out any content you already have been working on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think slow is better

new players dont want to crash ,they want stable

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Slow down guys. 
In my opinion it would be better to optimise the game you had made to this time. There is enough content for everybody to have along time of fun with this game. So please fix the problems with the networkcode  and all the otherstuff. If the game will work without any gamebreaking bugs than you focus again on new content. But nobody   wants to play a game with much content wicht works like  crap..

 

Just keep on and make us happy.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2019 at 3:10 PM, aceb20 said:

It's not like there is limited manpower in a dev team, absurd.

The point I'm making is that thing's should not be done any faster. I think maybe the ultimate point here is that the game needs to be developed at it's own pace with consideration to it's own resources, as you say.

The game was released to early access on steam. Many people confuse that with a game being ready for release, which is completely untrue. In my opinion this game should follow the well established timeline of alpha>beta>release. Finish the core systems in alpha, regardless how impatient people become. When core systems are done move to beta and kill bugs and polish the edges. The ability to balance new content is directly related to manpower.

To dive a little deeper here...When you are developing a game you can't polish things before the core systems are in place. One breaks the other. Likewise you must attempt to fix what bugs you can as you go otherwise you risk running into bugs which require rewriting core code and then breaking other things.

It's a balancing act and there is no one or the other. Both must coincide within the means of the team. Ultimately it comes down to the development lead. Does he or she fell like there is enough core game there to justify moving onto a bug and polishing focused phase? But that is a really different question than what was asked. Personally, I would say if the team has decided there is enough core infrastructure to support the game, then move forward and start polishing. But we need to know if that point has been reached internally before answering the question.

There is nothing wrong with this game or it's development cycle. Just a horde of people who bought it early access expecting a finished product. Great game with great potential but you have to be very careful today with early access. It can make you or break you.

We are on the same side. Relax. Steam needs a much more stringent application of who has access to early access development. People who can display an understanding of expectation to get involved with development process and having no expectation whatsoever of a finished product until official release. One thing that needs to go front and center is the review system before a game is released. It is being used and abused by people who have no idea what is going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Player count to drop? There are like 10 people left playing in the US. When will you fix the game? When there are 5 people left? We already said countless times, fix the game, performance, stability, balance, animation improvements, etc. Then you can focus on adding content, but honestly I don't know. It seems every new update your game breaks completely and you have to start from the beginning with all the bugs. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Make your game like a japanesse garden were everything is minimalistic and logical. Perfect symmetry of fluent gameplay and real life locations. Players aren't going anywhere, locations aren't going anywhere. Players will eventualy come to play the new maps you add and the game core and its performance will act as a bridge in between those two. So I say, build us a strong bridge first and decorate the garden later.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Problem is that those fixes are taking like forever. Before 0.3 the game was quite stable, sure it wasn't working well on older computers but it was solid and stable. Since 0.3 there are constant fixes which go nowhere it is almost 3 months and player numbers are dropping, reviews are down and game is slowly dying. There is little new content sure we got two TDM maps but they are versions of maps that already exist. Smolensk was a huge fiasco, there is no Recon, no Smolens, no Arctic Map. How much time devs need to fix it ? A Year ? 6 months ? Because they already have had 3 months to iron this version out. Right now there are still game-breaking bugs, there is hardly any new stuff and players are not longer playing WW3. 

Another fiasco with 0.4.4 patch yesterday was just another evidence that devs might not know what they are doing, as since launch it's like one step forward, 2-3 steps backwards.  

And I've been with them since before release but it's hard to have anymore faith :(

Edited by Virgil
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/12/2019 at 5:30 AM, tynblpb said:

I don't care about bugz. I don't see any gamebreaking bugs. For me. Plus, I don't rly care about new weapons. I have my Pecheneg and MSBS-B and don't rly need all other guns.  But there are 2 things that keep bothering me.

Maps. I'm a little tired with current maps. I've found it when I rolled all over the Berlin with destroyed optics and nothing stopped me. I almost can run now with closed eyes. Ppl saying something about Smolensk map being bad etc. I don't see them playing. ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つGiff it back!

Give us more maps or let us play current in other way. Dunno is it hard to implement but why don't u do "floating zone" Warzone. I mean, u've made Warzone LARGE maps. BUT! For last two months we are playing Warzone normal. And in the same time u can fit almost two normal Warzones in 1 WZ Large map. Why don't u split 1 WZ Large map in 2 different warzones?

For example Berlin.

20190311202924_1.jpg.0a1d0bcbf0641cb8476db7ef27dca345.jpg

We can fit 1 Warzone map in the middle and left side on the WZ Large map(green line). And the novelty of this map will be firefights in the park. All WW3 maps are urban warzones and only one map with trees was Smolensk, that is now not accesible. Or we can use the right side of the map(red line), and those, who play TDM, will say that it'll be good for CQC firefights map, but(!) it'll be Warzone and not simple TDM. And there will be even undeground part with metro station. Left - trees, right - metro. And finally. We can turn map 90 degrees(see yellow line with quadrants as bases) and we will see that now two opposing sides are fighting for highway. Middle of the map is perfect for vehicular combat, but enemies can allways be flanked by infantry. With this each map can be seen from a new angle and have some "fresh air" in them.

I really like the idea of having multiple warzone maps out of the same area. Even though I voted for content, I only did so because there are things like this that are just simple to add in. Why not just make some basic map variations and one or two staple FPS gamemodes to keep it interesting while you polish things like Recon to an acceptable level with the PTE audience? In my opinion, live server should be fed enough basic updates for things like new weapons with old mechanics straight off the bat because the game is still early access, and things that need more time to stay on PTE for balancing and fixing because otherwise there's no point to PTE. And, as before, simple content updates like reshaping Warzone maps can be entertaining enough to stop gaps between things like fully new maps.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...