Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About PuddleMurda

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. Hello community! So, as the topic suggests, I have been staying away from Squad for some time and booted up few matches the past two days. As I haven't played in a while, I didn't wanna jump straight back to squad leading, so I joined with squads as medic and did my thing. The game is as good as it has ever been... but... The absolute f*cking cancer that is these try-hard squad leaders, screaming and shouting, on squad comms every goddamn second of the entire match. Holy shitballs, it's like listening to a one man show podcast with try-hard dipshit over there. Complete lack of social skills, no idea whatsoever how to communicate respectfully, but damn sure to press that B-button down as if the entire world depends on it. At the end of an invasion match, that must have lasted for 2 hours, where our squad leader had been continuously feeding us to the meat grinder for a good 40 minutes or so, I just laid down in the grass, went to the bathroom, and was re-setting for the next match. I came back, put my headset on and all I could hear was "WHAT THE F*CK ARE YOU DOING "PUDDLEMURDA", THE F***CK, WHAT ARE YOU DOING OVER THEEEEEEEEEERRRRREEEE!!!??!?!?! YOU HAVE DONE F*CKING NOOOOOOOTHING THIS ENTIRE MATCH..." and that was the last I heard before leaving the squad. I had some 15 revives, better k/d than most in the squad, and had been right there until the very last minutes. 3-4 matches later, with similar experiences in every match, I closed down the game. Probably won't revisit for a while. Or, I don't feel like it at the moment. This is one of the reasons why I started to squad lead, as the sheer incompetence and retardation literally forced me to take control of the situation. The problem is just that I stopped playing some time ago for a similar reason. The f*cking mouth breathing wannabe squad leaders that join every single god damn time got the better of me. I can only tell people to stay off comms, create their own squad if they wanna leave so badly, or kick players so many times every single match before it just annoys the sh*t out of me. This is not OWI's fault. It's just that a good percentage of people are a waste of oxygen, and should be euthanized for the good of the human race. However... Give squad leaders the option to limit comms to fireteam leaders only. Just give us the option, so we can lead without having a mental breakdown and wanting to punch a whole through our screens because of some loudmouth f*ckstick that hates his own life and tries to ruin it for everybody else. Then I could promote the one or two functioning adults in the squad to FTLs, and we'd have a pleasant experience playing squad. An on off switch somewhere on the deploy screen, so if I need to address the whole squad briefly I can do so and then go back to FTLs only. Not checking this post for spelling or grammar, so enjoy... until mods remove it, haha
  2. If a squad leader is the social type of player, just assign each squad member a fireteam. Until we have a commander role, it is essentially up to the squad leaders to turn each match into a good experience. Squad leaders should be given as many tools as possible to enable them to execute the task at hand, and embrace the role, to their best ability. Personally, being someone who always squad lead, and take great pride and satisfaction in delivering an immersive, and fun (but also effective in regards to the game's objective) experience to the guys in my squad, being able to limit squad comms would be of great assistance.
  3. "if they knew then they probably wouldn't do it" This validates my point. Let's say I got three fire teams in my squad. Alpha = me + 1, Bravo = 4, Charlie = 3. I tell Bravo FTL to flank around west, fire at will, report what you find in this area. Charlie FTL, move up to that building and keep eyes primarily north, north east. The FTLs know their respective objectives, the other 6 guys will focus only on moving from place A to place B and be as combat effective as possible. They do not need to know why, and if they did (as they do now when everyone in squad is on the comms) they might consider it a crappy idea and go do something else. This is one reason, in combination with poor leading skills, why squads often are randomly spread out, people spawn on a HAB on the other side of the map, etc. Whether or not it is a crappy idea is irrelevant. If you want to make your own decisions, create a squad or spawn without one. "team members couldn't talk to SL either" Another good reason why. As squad leader I already have too many voices in my head. If you end up on a server with chatty SLs you will not hear your own thoughts, or anything else for that matter, during the entire match. I don't want to hear 8 guys' opinions, as they are of no use to me 90% of the time. That's why I only want two FTLs to provide useful and relevant information. "There is a social component to the game as well. People hang out and have fun together. " I guess I am not the "social" player. I try to be social in real life, and when I play games I want to actually play the game... not make friends. But that is just my personal preference, and not an argument I try to make in any way. Regarding dead players not knowing what to do, or where to spawn, as someone mentioned. If you are dead, not incapacitated but actually dead, you can listen in on squad comms, but not participate. "Everyone who are dead, spawn here" alternatively "Bravo spawn here, Charlie here" is all you need to regroup. Again, I don't want a grunt's opinion. "Uuuh, squad lead, I can spawn there and do this!?". No, if I wanted you to, I would have told you so, and if a suggestion should come from anyone, it should be a FTL.
  4. I have previously suggested that only fireteam leaders have access to squad comms, and all grunts have local voice only. That would force SLs to divide the squad in to fireteams, which in turn would have to work closely together. As someone who only plays as squad leader, I believe this would enhance each grunt's performance as a result of not having to listen to every little bit of (to them) irrelevant information, as well as relieving myself of a lot of micro management as the fireteam leaders are taking care of this responsibility. Their fireteam leader will inform them of what they need to know. This would also force the grunt to always have their respective fireteam leader's back, and stay within a reasonable distance at all times. There is a simple reason as to why real military forces have a clear and strict hierarchy, with everyone on a need to know basis: It works
  5. Here come the girls

    Good idea! I hope the gals will have big enough balls to tell off that one dude in the squad who tries to steer the squad throughout the match by nagging the SL, and coming with suggestions every 20 seconds. I usually tell them to create their own squad if they feel so passionate about my role, and it works most of the time (if not; KICK), but that will not be an option in this particular case. I guess you ladies just have to tell them to shut the f*ck up. There is always that one f... that peculiarity, if you will. So prepare the girls for what's to come. I think of John Travolta in that Pelham 123 movie when he tells that lady conductor (conductress?) something along the lines of; You've been put on God's good earth to do one thing and one thing only, and that is to conduct these people off this train... now conduct! And she goes; Now listen here you little shits...
  6. The upcoming implementation of fireteams within the squad is a great addition to both depth and role significance, but only if done right and if managed correctly by squad leaders. Personally I hope that only fireteam leaders will have access to squad comms as radios are overwhelmingly abused by the majority and it is getting tiresome as squad leader to constantly have to tell both other SLs as well as squad members to stay off comms, unless they have imperative information to share. All seasoned SLs have on numerous occasions had that one guy in the squad who is very active on comms, suggesting strategies and constantly calling out activity, or just small-talking. What I do on these occasions is calmly explain to the fella to stay off comms, and if the urge to organize a squad is that strong I advice to create a squad of their own. I don't need anyone else's constant opinion with every decision I make. However, sometimes a bit more initiative from squad members is a welcome addition and a guy like this, who often is pretty competent on a treeline-to-treeline level but not necessarily SL material, could possibly be a great fireteam leader. I believe a deeper hierarchical structure, enforced by limiting communication the lower in rank you are and keeping your rank communications relevant, can have very positive results in pretty much every aspect of the game Please note that this has nothing to do with "realism" or "milsim". This is just basic human psychology and a structure tried and tested over the course of human history. Thousands of years of perpetual war and every single army, guerrilla, faction, and even street gangs function most efficiently with a general principal of a hierarchical structure based on unquestioned rank in place. I am very happy to see features like this that enforces such a hierarchy in a tactical shooter like Squad. What I hope for; Grunt = No radio Fireteam leader = Squad comms Squad leader = Squad comms and SL comms Commander = SL comms If the grunt does not have access to squad comms he / she will have to stay close to squad- or fireteam members to be up to date with what is going on. This can to some sound counter productive, but I assure you it is not. The grunt's main objective is to be combat effective, identify and neutralize targets. If the grunt is constantly being peppered with SL commands, or is distracted by the grand scheme of the operation, the grunt's combat efficiency is reduced. Keep the grunt on a need-to-know basis through local voice communication; "Hold here and keep eyes to the south, south east, east", or "We are moving west toward that compound roughly 100 meters out", "Fire at will", "Hold fire if not in a stand-off and call out contact direction" is all the information the grunt needs. The fireteam leader will recieve orders from the SL, and in his / her own way pass on and execute these orders with much greater efficiency than if the entire squad hears the same order, and everyone is acting out their own version of said order (headless chicken phenomena activated). As grunts are restricted to local voice communication, the fireteam has to work closely together as a unit. When a fireteam leader then call out contact or an immediate threat over squad comms the squad leader will much faster have a greater understanding of positions and the general situation, without total comm chaos. The squad leader will now be relieved of micro managing each individual player in the squad, as this is taken care of by the fireteam leaders. He / she is then allowed to primarily focus on the squad's general purpose, and coordinate defense or attack strategies with other SLs. At the moment we do not see many, if any, coordinated strategies executed by more than one squad simultaneously. I think this is due to the squad leaders having too many responsibilities, and is forced to be at a know-it-all basis at all times, not the need-to-know basis that is historically proven to be much more effective. The commander is also on a need-to-know basis. Only receiving relevant information, giving squad leaders orders accordingly which, with minimum effort, will trickle down the ranks. The commander does not need to know if a LAT-grunt is taking fire from the south of his / her position, and often this type of information is redundant even to the squad leader, which is why the fireteam leader is there. If that same disturbance to the south becomes a more of a severe threat to the squad's objective, the fireteam leader can then inform and discuss this with the SL. If the SL decides that this threat is of greater importance the commander will be informed. I know some people in here is going to claim that this is "boring" or "too complicated", and the realism / milsim / arcade debate is on. Again, please note that this claim is not my personal opinion of what would be most effective. This is not personal preference, or based on "what type of game I want to play". These are facts, based on thousands of years of combat and warfare. I understand that some players want to sit in a Discord-channel with 15 others, listening to a rumbling thunder of voices and trying to sift through all the noise to get to the relevant information. Some might even claim that this is an effective way of communicating in this game. Trust me, and most importantly trust the developers, on this one. It is not. A hierarchical structure based on unquestioned rank is the most effective way of leading larger numbers of combatants. That's it. End of discussion. The developers seem to have realized this, and is slowly implementing a system that will enforce this. Again, if you want you can circumvent this system by hopping on an overly crowded Discord-channel, but it is an unquestionable fact that you are doing yourself and your team a disservice. What it comes down to is the topic at hand: Game depth and role significance There is only so much the developers can do to create this spectacular digital world. In the end we as players must populate and make this digital world come to life. We also choose in what manner we do so. We all should try our best to own each respective role, and do our part for the greater good of our fireteam, squad, team, game. In team objective based games where the actual differences and purposes between player roles or classes are minuscule the headless chicken phenomena is no longer a phenomena but instead the norm, or even meta if you will. Look at the Battlefield franchise. With each game that was released, starting from 1942, the differences and significance of each role were slowly watered down to the point where the franchise eventually became unrecognizable, and lone wolf / headless chicken gameplay was all you'd get to experience. Now Dice is trying to revert this, but it is too late. The playerbase is broken up, and no one really cares anymore. I hope OWI continues to break down Squad into more layers, and adding to it's depth. If all of the features are implemented correctly, and players actually invest a little bit of themselves in trying to understand and own their assigned role, we could have immensely complicated and multi-layered missions that would play out beautifully thanks to a very simple concept; A structured unquestioned hierarchy, and each role is on a need-to-know basis. Side note regarding role significance; A sense of real participation and purpose is also an important component. Another reason as to why I am opposed the "everyone can revive everyone"-feature.
  7. SQUAD - The more, the worse

    I played on the Guardians server once. An SL had some serious attitude issues, a severe case of narcissism, and decided to abuse me and my squad like a 12 year old schoolyard bully before kicking me. Reason? Well, on the back-cap I volunteered for we ran into heavy resistance, and some time after we had capped the last objective before the frontline we were still under heavy fire. The SL started screaming, like literally screaming as if mommy just unplugged the Xbox because it is time to play outside, telling me (sprinkled with a derogatory remark like "retard" or "****ing idiot" every other word) that we should be at the frontline (next flag). Naturally I told this entitled little brat that he should take a chill pill and ask mommy for some milk and cookies to calm him down, as we not only had flag superiority but our squad still had a lot of enemy contact. This SL was apparently an admin on the server, and I got kicked. Never playing on that server ever again, and neither do my friends. I wonder if a server like that does more harm than good...
  8. The pitfall that is community feedback

    Stated in the first couple of sentences in the OP; "Most of what I am about to write does not relate directly to Squad at this very stage, but my fear is that it will in a not too distant future." So you misinterpreted my intent with this thread, and Nightingale87 called out just the type of post I was referring to. Joking or not, that very comment is a condescending and agitating attempt to prove a non-point, and a "lol" does not do anything other than enforce the notion of the comment not being carefully constructed and thought through. The very comment Nightingale87 called you out for did just what the OP was insinuating that such comments do... start a debate that has nothing to do with the actual discussion at hand, thus spiral the thread and a potentially interesting discussion out of control. If you had actually read or understood the point of the OP, you would have realized that "I think This type of comment is exactly what the OP meant." was as on point as anything possibly could be. The analogy is pretty good, but I would not consider or compare a playerbase, of which 8 / 10 does not even understand the very basics of the game, to aircraft pilots. Most feedback is, as also very strongly suggested in the OP, nothing but emotional appeal from someone who simply is not good enough, or will not invest enough of him- / herself to become sufficient at playing the game, and want changes that cater to them personally, not for the greater good of said game. Also, being entitled to an opinion does not mean that anyone has to listen to your opinion. Sadly a lot of developers do just that. Suggesting that is not the case is, as I have also strongly suggested several times, naive. Again, I would like to go back to the very beginning once more; "Most of what I am about to write does not relate directly to Squad at this very stage, but my fear is that it will in a not too distant future." The discussion I was hoping for in this thread, and the actual point of my initial post, has been predominantly disregarded. This due to most readers and posters saw this as an attempt from my part to topple the casual fan base and push for a more milsim experience. In my opinion this happened due to the very mindset I was hoping the discussion would be about. Appeal to emotion. Someone read "realism" and all of a sudden that was the direction the thread took. Even I jumped on board, as I am also a part of the community. To me this entire post, and all of its content pretty much sums up what I was first suggesting. So thank you all for that. Edit; Just like in every other forum of discussion, e.g. politics or sport, the case of "being right" is a stronger incentive for engagement instead of actually having a case.
  9. The pitfall that is community feedback

    Thank you for the reply! Making a more streamlined game with the possibility for the community to mod said game is great. It is often a mod that becomes more popular and keeps a title relevant for much longer than the actual base game. I kind of wish developers would develop, or at least tried to develop that game and perfect it with animations, world interaction, UI, etc, and not leave it to the community to create these experiences at 75% of their full potential. I understand not trying this from a business / entrepreneur stand point, as it is high risk. But if a game developer has sold x million copies of a game, the game must have paid for itself several times already, no? Doesn't this open up for a great opportunity to try something ground breaking? Instead we get these communities and forums, and to say that you as developers are not affected or influenced in any way by what is being said in these forums is not only naive, but also contradictory to the business model itself, early access - community feedback. I am not criticizing you here, just pondering openly.
  10. The pitfall that is community feedback

    @Romby and @sgt_froug I agree that "xxx" rather than "realism" would have been a better way to convey the actual point of my original post, rather then sprinkling my own wishes for a more milsim experience in there. I am not saying I am preaching the truth. I am not claiming to know what is good for the game. I am voicing my opinion, just like everyone else. This thread was primarily supposed to be about the misrepresentation of the playerbase in the different forums, and how such misrepresentation might influence the developers in a way that is not beneficial for the game. If I could have it my way, I would; - Remove all in game HUD icons, so you always need to identify your target before engaging. - Only keep squad leaders visible on the map, to slow down gameplay and enforce everyone playing to be more involved in what is actually happening through local voice communication, and directives given from each respective squad leader. - Remove rallys completely to make transport trucks, and all other forms of logistics, an imperative part of gameplay. Not the claim, drive, and ditch gameplay we have now. - Only allow one HAB per team, and this HAB can not be built inside a cap-zone. This to make the importance of such an FOB vastly greater, which would lead to a more carefully developed plan of attack from the squad leaders. - Disable respawning of all vehicles, except transport trucks. - Add a 5 minute game start timer to let the squad leaders develop said plan of attack, assign roles and fire teams, and hand out personal orders and directives to individuals. - Make headshots, that incapacitate, fatal to the player with no revive possible, and the possibility to finish off a downed enemy with a couple of extra shots to the body, or a tap to the head. - Implement the natural eye FOV zoom to encourage more long distance, and drawn out fire fights, which in turn would lead to realistically intuitive strategic choices like deep flanks, use of mortars, etc. I could go on and on listing features I believe would make this game a god damn masterpiece (and I could compile three dimensional and philosophical arguments for why I believe so, all day long), but I am not going to. For the same reason the "it's not fun"-argument should be blatantly ignored. It is just out of place, too far "milsim" and too far "more action = more fun", and will not lead to anything other than heated and negatively charged debates that provide no valuable feedback whatsoever. I would love to see a true milsim game on the market, but I am not expecting Squad to be that game, and therefore I am not going to clutter Squad's game forums with these types of suggestions over and over. Sure, one of the suggested features above could work fine with the spirit of Squad, but not all of them together, as it would make the game something completely different. I feel the same way about posts claiming "The faster you get to respawn and join the fight, the more fun the game will be". I am probably contradicting myself, in more than one way, so go ahead and point that out.
  11. The pitfall that is community feedback

    This is the very idea I am arguing against. When I sift through game forums of games I actively play and see all the complaints, which it mostly is, I can not relate to a fraction of those complaints. These complaints are most of the time backed up with nothing other than emotional appeal, as I pointed out in my original post. Rarely do I see constructive criticism, or in-depth analysis of whatever the complaintive is referring to. This leads me to believe that these posts are "salty rants" rather than an attempt to provide constructive criticism for the greater good of the game. Therefore a vast majority of posts should just be blatantly ignored, and not be viewed by developers as "feedback" on implemented features. Remember, it is more or less scientifically proven that we, human beings, can take something to the end of the world for the sake of being "right", even if we know we don't have a clue of what we are talking about. Again, I would like to point out what I stated in my original post; I am thinking more and more about the backlash EA is having with Battlefield V, and how many Battlefield fans might turn to a better alternative for a WW2 game. Imagine if a horde of players who are used to the fast paced gameplay of the Battlefield franchise decide to purchase Post Scriptum and start to bombard the Post Scriptum forums.
  12. The pitfall that is community feedback

    I see your point, but the end does not justify the means in this case. There must be a ton of different options that wouldn't sacrifice depth and the true meaning of each individual role on the battlefield. This is at best an attempt to throw a bit of makeup on something the community has turned in to an issue, when it never was one. If I join a late game I play as a medic myself. Reviving 20 something teammates, keeping the squad somewhat up and running, and still achieving a positive K/D (which for some reason a lot of players think is more important than the team effort) is not something I would consider a feat. It's just another game as a medic (when done right). There is no need to give every player out there the ability to revive teammates, it just makes the medic role less attractive for those who actually manages to own that role. It is already quite easy to stay together as a squad, and keep rallys up. Sometimes I am wondering if HABs are redundant, as rally point warfare can be highly effective if done right. It is up to each player in each squad, and their squad leader, to own their respective roles and nothing needs to be made "easier". Marksmen and MGs in the back together with a medic and the SL, riflemen on point with LATs trailing just behind and the second medic somewhere in that mix... done. If they want players to rely more on revives than respawns, give everyone the ability to drag a downed player to safety, play as a unit, let the medics do their job while marksmen and MGs provide suppressive fire. One can also claim that removing rallys all together would force the squad to not run around like a bunch of headless chickens, dying left and right because no one knows or cares about the overall objective of the game. In a game like Squad, where the entire premise of the game is communication, tactical decisions and teamwork, nothing should be made "easier". It will do nothing but lessen the magic, and water the game down to just another team vs team shooter. Players need to man up, own their role, and play the game the way it is supposed to be played. This is what many, if not the majority of, forum users can not grasp. The argument is always "this is too difficult" or "not fun", when the discussion should look something like; "here is a creative solution to a feature that could be awesome, but needs a few touches to perfect". To say that OWI is not at all affected or the least bit influenced by a general consensus in the different forums (which I believe misrepresents the actual playerbase) is in my opinion quite naive. This will only encourage an even larger crowd to run and gun like headless chicken. Is this really what you want? Edit; I believe this feature will do nothing but turn a real issue like the meat grinder effect into an absolute clusterf*ck of an issue.
  13. The pitfall that is community feedback

    I believed this until the "everyone can revive a downed teammate"-feature was announced, as this is clearly a result of the outcry in different forums about how boring it is to play as a medic, or how squad leaders find it difficult to keep two medics in a squad. So this is not exactly what the devs are doing. Hence my concern. Edit; I don't even understand where the notion of a lack of medics come from, as I always play as SL, and always have two medics if I request it.
  14. Thoughts on Suppression

    @Vance Great analysis, and I agree with pretty much everything you said. For me the "everything is OP"-model, where every single bullet hitting its target has a noticeable effect, is the right way to go. - Get hit, and take a good amount of damage, one way or the other you are combat ineffective until a medic has patched you up. - Get hit, but not take serious damage, would put you in a somewhat paralyzed state for a short while, a state that could be shortened by having a teammate lay a hand on you to snap you out of it. Simple solutions for complicated issues. This is simply not true. There are many games that turn this formula around, in order to make each interaction with another player more of an intense experience. Building tension and adding an extra layer or two of micro- and strategic management does not make it a "boring game" as you suggest. Maybe boring to you, but that does not reflect everyone else's experience. Low wait times, lots of targets. Sound like Battlefield to me, not Squad.
  15. Before I lay it all on the table I want to clearly point out that I do not have any factual evidence of this being the case. It is merely a personal reoccurring observation I have made as a frequent forum visitor, and follower of development of games in the somewhat niche genre that is hardcore tactical shooters. Most of what I am about to write does not relate directly to Squad at this very stage, but my fear is that it will in a not too distant future. What I believe to be a very negative aspect of official game forums and generally influential forums such as Reddit, or even Facebook (apparently), is that the actual playerbase is misrepresented by a small percentage of frequent forum posters, such as myself, and that game developers rely too much on player feedback rather than their very own vision of what the final and finished product should be. As the early access business model has boomed in recent years, giving small developers the opportunity to create titles that previously only AAA studios would have the finances and capacity to develop, game forums and feedback trackers have become common. Players are given the opportunity to voice their opinions, and if the consensus is distinguishable enough in said forums these very opinions can at times persuade game developers to make subtle changes, or even change the direction of the development entirely. This is probably very appealing to many gamers, even myself, as we now can be a part of the development, even if only by voicing our opinions. We can now try to influence developers to implement features we have dreamt of seeing in games since Half-Life first blew our minds. We can now indirectly be a part of a passion we have. A passion for gaming, and the evolution of video games. "What is the problem?", one might then ask. "That's awesome, right?!" Personally, I think this is absolutely detrimental to the creative freedom and vision of game developers. Too many cooks spoil the broth. Let me explain; It might be a very effective strategy to build a budget and a strong (not necessarily good) relationship with the players, but I firmly believe a lot of potential is lost in the attempt to please this small percentage of the playerbase that takes the time to engage in the game's different forums. How many forums have been flooded with "I don't like that"-posts, with little if any substance to them other than the player's very own emotional appeal? How many proposed features, that could have been possibly game changing in nothing but a positive light if implemented correctly, have been downvoted with "that's not fun"? How often is an argument posted along the lines of "There is a limit to how much realism that can be implemented before it becomes boring" or "That would drive most of the playerbase away because insert: appeal to emotion"? These types of arguments are often praised as absolute truths, thus creative suggestions with a lot of potential are downvoted into oblivion, when in an objective reality the answer is; "There is a limit to how much realism that can be implemented before YOU find it boring" and "That would drive YOU away because insert: appeal to emotion". This is were I am becoming increasingly worried. The suggestions and ideas met with this type of rhetoric are almost always of features that would add another level of depth to a game. Forum users rarely engage in constructive criticism, trying to figure out whether or not such a feature could be implemented in a functional way, taking many different factors into consideration, but instead let their initial emotional response to such a suggestion dictate how they will respond to said suggestion. "No, just no. I would not want to do that, and therefore it is a bad idea", is a very typical forum response to suggestions that could lead to very interesting discussions, and possibly game changing implemented features. Appeal to emotion-based arguments can often be very persuasive and difficult for someone who is trying to be creative to counter. Not only because of the simple fact that the emotional appeal is based on a different opinion, but also due to the creative suggestion posted not being a well tested theory and therefore is denounced quite easily with a simple "no, I do not like that"-argument, easily relatable to many forum users. This leads to a generally negative atmosphere. Not much is being pushed forward to the developers in terms of carefully constructed multilayered ideas and suggestions that has been subject to constructive criticism and brainstorming. What we see is mostly "I don't like this, fix it" or "I want to be able to do this, get on it devs". Developers giving in to floods of these kinds of opinions is nothing but detrimental, and they simply shouldn't. They should not listen to players bleating unconsidered emotional statements, because most people don't have a clue what is good for themselves, or anyone else for that matter, in the long run. In OWI's case, implementation of features should come from three dimensionally explored and thought through theories of how said features will make the game an even more intricate and tactical anomaly among hardcore first person shooters. NOT take "waaah, I don't like this" into any consideration whatsoever, even if these complaints are large in numbers. A lot (I would even go as far as saying most) of forum posters do not even attempt to look at the big picture from a three dimensional point of view. Don't get me wrong, I am not saying we should stop discussing and brainstorming around our favorite games. However, I do believe giving much less "power" to the forum users (in other words; developers should just have a little more integrity and balls to develop their game) would lead to a much more nuanced community which could actually provide really useful feedback, and ingenuitive suggestions. It would be interesting to see more forum user's (that I have just now taken a big dump on) point of view on this. If it has been given any thought, that is. I find it hard to believe I am the only one feeling this way, even though it is slightly contradicting myself, since I am a posting forum user.