Jump to content

TR97

Member
  • Content count

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About TR97

  • Rank
    Fireteam Leader
  1. WW2OL kind of shot themselves in the foot with the same mentality. To some extent, yes, there is always going to be a demographic barrier wherein a game like that simply won't appeal to everyone. However, there were a ton of people who would have liked playing the game if only it's execution had been better in terms of game design and a UI that provided more consistency to the player's experience as well as aided new players into finding that quality experience quicker and easier. WW2OL I think at some point let their own self talk about how niche the game was lead them to believe it just couldn't appeal to anyone but the most hardcore. When, in reality, it was because the design/UI was so poorly engineered that it forced out every potential customer who wasn't absolutely so hardcore about wanting the game to work that they were willing to push through all the crap to make it work. I think that belief may have steered them away from understanding that fixing the game with consistency and new player experience in mind was far more important than the amount of attention it ended up getting.
  2. If it were then they wouldn't need to link videos and wiki pages for new players to integrate into experiencing the game. How many people tried this game and left early because they had experiences similar to mine? For everyone person like me who points out this as a problem, how many people never actually bothered to say anything but just silently uninstalled? You're perfectly entitled to your politely expressed opinion, of which I have no problem; but let's be real here. Something is not working right with the game if it has so many installs yet so few playing it. I'm trying to help you guys understand why that is and some of the people here aren't doing the game any favors by denying it's a problem just because they personally don't feel they have a problem with it. At least the Devs acknowledged they are working on it. So my comment isn't directed at them. But the players who seem to want to blame other players, or deny the experience other players are dealing with, is an attitude that isn't going to help grow the game.
  3. Logical fallacy, strawman. That was never my conclusion or the point of my post. There's a lot the Squad leaders aren't doing. That's the problem. It is the fault of the game and UI design that makes it unable to function smoothly, and you're blaming the squad leader as a crutch. When the fact is most squad leaders aren't living up to this mythical standard of what you expect to be happening. And even if they were, the shitty UI is not going to do anything to actually ease players into understanding what they are suppose to do to start working with this superhuman tactical genius who can whip players into order and is ready to give them orders and answer every question they have about the game while in combat. From the forum you would think these mythical creatures populate every server in abundance and they can't imagine why every new player isn't tripping over themselves to be a part of this non-experience. The UI can only do as much as you are competent as making it do. A bad UI can't do much. A smartly engineered game design combined with a smartly engineered UI can perform miracles. These aspects of the game are what shape player behavior. Knowing how to shape player behavior and therefore craft player experiences to be what your goal is, is what separates good game design from mediocre. If you don't think half these problems can be solved with better UI and design then you've already lost the battle and may as well close up shop. You're not capable of engineering solutions if you've already decided it's impossible so you're just going to blame the players for not putting in enough effort, or blame the squad leaders for not crutching hard enough for your poor designs. WW2OL's community did step up. What I'm trying to help you guys understand is that stepping up doesn't solve the problem and no amount of using player interaction as a crutch for bad design will ever gloss over the problem enough to make the game's growth viable. At the end of the day, no matter how hard you try, the players cannot replace proper game and UI design.
  4. It's probably the same reason for poor retention with WW2OL. Difficulty of entry into the game combined with poor consistency of the gameplay itself. Poor consistency is always the fault of the design itself, as it shows a failure to channel players towards the experience that is desired. Sandbox games by definition don't provide consistency and are entirely dependent on the players to generate the experience. But a game like Squad is not intended to be a sandbox game because it tries to funnel people towards a certain experience - it just does a poor job at that due to both the design and the UI. Nor would you ever want to play a game that is a mil sim that was a sandbox because a mil sim is gameplay driven and skill based in it's nature. It's not like a sandbox RPG that is story driven and often not even skill based. That's why everyone here who tries to use the playerbase as a crutch for a lack of sound design and UI is shooting the game in the foot because it's not a sandbox game and can't be expected to rely on the quality of player interactions to make it functional in the absense of a sound design. Merely repeating your claim, without justifying that claim, doesn't make it true. Everything I already said to you still applies, and you haven't countered any of it. Don't be guilty of the same bullshit the World War 2 online community fell into of trying to tell all the droves of players who had trouble with the game that it was there fault for not trying hard enough to find a squad to work with because the UI and game design was completely inadequate at doing it's job. That kind of pride and arrogance won't result in Squad becoming the game it needs to be.
  5. You don't understand what the issues are if you think we're talking about the difficulty level of the combat. Insurgency has very straitforward and easy to pick up UI and game mechanics. You select weapon, you spawn, you see points A,B,C hovering over your screen as part of the UI. You run towards them. Combat happens. Repeat until match ends. It could be better, but it's actually good enough for how simple the game itself is. A more complex game like Squad demands a more robust and well thought out UI, with game mechanics being designed with ease of access in mind. If you have to look on the internet to understand how the game is suppose to work your UI and game design have already failed. Now you're acknowledging to me what others here haven't, that what I experienced is not isolated and not merely the result of not knowing the game enough? See, that's part of what I was concerned about. If my average experience playing this game would involve me having to hoof it in from the rear base because there are no forward bases active, or for some reason not being able to spawn at them, then the game design is not functioning properly and changes are needed. That isn't a game I would have fun playing consistently. I did it enough with WW2OL to know it's a flawed design because your ratio of travel to combat is too high, resulting in inconsistent frontlines with not enough players on them. And that design is not going to win over trial players. This is where part of either the UI or the design has failed. I had nothing like that going on. I was part of a squad but no guidance was given either by players or by the UI. I'm not saying it never happens, but it didn't happen with me; and if it's not happening with regularity then you have to consider what that is doing to new players. It's not the community's fault for not stepping up more by being more proactive with leading in-game. The design is what has failed to address this properly. The buck stops with the development. Yikes. At least I'm not the only one who felt like refunding. You know this would be the first time I ever got a refund on a game. The combined issues I had were bad enough that I was seriously thinking to myself I don't know if I would be able to keep playing this, or if I would want to. It's rare that I ever think that way about a game to the point where I figure I'd be better off getting a refund as opposed to just letting it sit in my library on the chance maybe I'll want to pick it up and play it later.
  6. S! I don't think it's an accident that the one guy here who seems to agree the most with me is the one who also played WW2OL. It probably gave us some unique perspective about the importance of this issue. I know what it's like to support a game for almost a decade as it struggles along in development never fully realizing it's potential, all the while watching new players cycle through like a revolving door because the game is so opaque in it's design and interface that few stick around long enough to appreciate what it has to offer. Squad was the one game out of all the ones I looked at on the market that I thought would be the closest to delivering the kind of game experience I was hoping for (merging that middle ground effectively between Insurgency and ARMA). If I didn't care about them succeeding at that then I wouldn't be posting this feedback. I also know what it's like to patiently struggle to learn a difficult game, crashing numerous simulator planes at the airfield being the first start on the road to eventually becoming an ace pilot. So the feedback you're getting from me is not from the perspective of someone who plays COD or Battlefield and just didn't have the patience or got frustrated by the difficulty. I'm relaying what a big problem this is from the perspective of someone who has been there and done that with other games numerous times already, so I am acutely aware of what pitfalls this game should not repeat. I would best compare it to someone who has played a lot of MMORPG games. It's amazing the amount of crap, timesinks, and bad design you're willing to put up with on your first MMO. The more you play, the less crap you're willing to put up with on repeat encounters. Eventually you start actively looking for the games that have solved the problems you don't like in past games.
  7. Fair enough if true. But Steam says offworld industries is the publisher of Post Scriptum. However, a lot of the issues I've talked about don't merely come down to a lack of resources to put into features. So it makes the early access excuse a moot point. The problem comes more from poorly implemented features. You wouldn't need to add a tutorial or rework the UI if the UI were made with ease of access in mind from the start.
  8. That doesn't work as an excuse when the devs put development resources into a second game (post scriptum) while their first game is still technically in early release phase after 3 years. I don't fault them for trying to inject some more cash into their company with a new release, but let's not pretend Squad still deserves to have the early access excuse by this point for failing to have certain basic necessities taken care of. That is true. A big problem with game and UI design is people assume too much from familiarity with the system. It's hard to anticipate what people are going to get hung up on without testing it by throwing random people in front of it and seeing what happens. You cannot expect to lean on the community as a crutch for a lack of a sufficiently intuitive interface and game design. This reflects a mistake that was made on WW2OL. It's dangerous to let the community be a crutch for a lack of development put into giving new players a smooth introduction into the game. "let them join a squad, then the squad can teach them the ropes". It never worked. Which is why they had such an abysmal turnover rate of free trial players to paying players. That would be another mistake you don't want to repeat from WW2OL. There's always more to do. If you don't make it an easy transition for new players to get to hooked you may never get around to finishing the game, or it will actually take longer due to not having as much income. This shows an acknowledgement that they know there is a real problem. But linking some out of game videos and wiki pages is not an effective way to deal with the problem. The fact that you believe this, demonstrates why raising the red flag for some of you was necessary. It's downright delusion to think the only thing you need to know for success in Squad is how to fire your gun. That level of knowledge will not result in a satisfying game experience. The experience I described to you is what most will face. And they won't all have the patience to slog it out because they are convinced there's a gem of a game waiting behind it all. That's exactly the problem. If you expect players to have to turn to online searching and wikis to figure out how the game is suppose to work then you're going to lose a lot of potential players. The old maxim of successful game development is "easy to get into but difficult to master". You fall under the category of those I mentioned who would need a rude awakening about how intuitive the game really is by actually watching random people try it for the first time. Blaming the players for not being able to figure out the UI doesn't put money in the bank of the developers. Fixing the UI and mechanics to quickly integrate and grab the fascination of new players does. Posting about the tech issues on two forums I've got no solutions yet. If that weren't an issue, the lack of good servers is a big problem. I've got a couple servers to choose from and I'm expected to wait in line everytime I want to play the game. Maybe they need some quality official servers spaced around the country to address this shortage. Both of those get in the way of being able to evaluate the game, and at this point it's hard to tell if the game would really live up to expectations once I put in the time to learn it. It's a catch 22. Take a chance the server/tech issues sort out but then maybe the game really ends up being unsatisfactory anyway. If I already knew the game was awesome from my limited experience then I'd be far more willing to take my chances with the tech/server issues. But when they all converge together the game looks increasingly like a $40 risk not worth taking. From experience in WW2OL, I'd say that should be your priority. If you can attract new blood to the game then you'll get an uptick in finances that will let you speed up development. If you have trouble converting players due to the inconsistency and opaqueness of the game, then you'll always be trying to play catch up and never will get around to actually bringing clarity and consistency to the player experience.
  9. I don't doubt that my experience would improve if I played more and I'd get come to understand the quirks of how this game and it's UI works - but that's not the issue. The issue is can you plop a new free weekend player into the seat of this game and expect them to be able to play it (not master it, but at least get into it) without another player explaining it to them or after many hours of trial and error? An in-game tutorial would be a good start. It's the most basic thing you can do - but Squad doesn't even have that. You misunderstood what I was suggesting if you thought I said the interface had to be so intuitive that no guidance was needed via tutorials or pop-up aids. However, the more intuitive you design your UI the less heavy your in-game tutorialization of the game will have to be to get people up and running. It doesn't take Triple A finances to design a good UI and throw in some tutorial chat bubbles that guide a player through what it all is the first time they load up your game. Most budget indie games these days manage that much.
  10. Windows 7, 64 bit. First issue: I can't play the game in full screen. When I switch it to full screen and my native monitor resolution the screen goes black. I have to forcibly restart my computer to get out of the game at that point. I had to delete the game's config folder to reset the resolution and see the game again. I was able to get it working for some of the time at one point, but then it would go black at random times like after loading a game or after alt-tabbing. I worked around this by switching to windowed borderless mode set to my native screen resolution. This seems to visually offer no downside compared with fullscreen, but I don't know if it results in a potential performance degradation by running it in windowed mode. Second issue: Mouse aim is too imprecise to function in combat. I can't make fine and quick adjustments to hit my intended aimpoint. I don't have this problem in other FPS games I've played recently. Using Sentey Revolution Pro. Adjusting mouse sensitivity in the game settings didn't seem to help.
  11. You wouldn't, because you're no longer a new player. You also don't have the responsibility or burden that the developers do of needing to be able to see a game through the eyes of a new players in order to more effectively grow the playerbase. I've been through this song and dance enough with other games like ARMA and WW2OL to recognize the problems right off the bat when I see it. That's not to say I wouldn't overcome these roadblocks with some time invested in learning the game. In fact, I've already done it in other games. That's not the point of my feedback As I already said, the lack of intuitiveness in the game's design would not probably dissuade me from playing it if I wasn't having so many technical issues on top of it - because I know how to learn how the game works and fit in. But do I have the incentive to do that when at first glance the gameplay appears to involve just me having to run for 10 minutes from the rear base before encountering an enemy, meanwhile my team is off doing who knows what scattered everywhere but the frontline? I know enough about these kinds of games to know that may not always be the case, but that isn't a promising start. And because of technical issues I don't have a lot of time to figure out if there is anything better the game has to offer in terms of gameplay before the time limit runs out on a refund. These kinds of scenarios aren't going to make a good first impression on new players, especially those without a history in this kind of gaming such as I have. The point of the gameplay side of my feedback is to raise the red flag about how this system is seriously lacking in necessary intuitiveness, so the devs can hopefully improve upon this. If someone like me who has 15 years of milsim gaming, and gaming on similar platforms, can't just jump in and intuitively get with the program then you're missing something. And if your system can't be made very intuitive then you at the very least need some in-game coaching for players. If you don't have that in a game like this then you're going to miss out on a lot of potential new players - especially during those free weekends. If your expectation is that people should have to learn how the game functions, and how to work with others, by fumbling around in trial and error or scouring wiki pages and forums then you're not setting yourself up for success. There's no excuse for not having an intuitive system or at the very least some in-game coaching - ideally both, if you really care about doing things right. The best way to figure out what you need to do is by plopping various people of different gaming backgrounds in front of your game and seeing what happens. They'll blow your pride out of the water pretty quick if you have any about how intuitive and great your system is. But if you can redesign the systems so even they can jump right in and understand what's going on then you've got a winner. If you think you don't need a system that intuitive to maximize success then that's an even worse pride problem. Even worse would be recognizing you have a problem, but taking the lazy way out and convincing yourself it can't be made intuitive so let's just hope enough players are willing to struggle through it to get hooked. Not a winning strategy, and not a necessary approach to take either.
  12. I have played various simulator games and realistic shooters like World War 2 Online, Warthunder (not arcade versions), America's America 1 and 2, Red Orchestra, Insurgency, etc. I have also enjoyed a lot of other non-sim shooter games if they aren't overly arcade in their gunplay, have a larger scale, and have a high skill curve, like Planetside 2, Battlefield 2, etc. I was hopeful that Squad had finally delivered something that combined the realistic gunplay and movement of a game like RO or Insurgency, but on a scale that was more realistic like WW2OL/ARMA, and with mechanics that streamlined the game's coordination and spawning so you don't end up with the massive ratio of downtime to action that is seen in ARMA or WW2OL. Unfortunately, I am now in the position of having to decide if I want to refund the game on steam before I hit the 2 hour mark, or if I want to take a chance that these issues will be ironed out. 1. Technical problems. a) I can't use fullscreen mode without the game going black. I am forced to play in windowed mode. b) Freelook and mouseaim are so jumpy and imprecise that it's impossible for me to aim reliably. Changing the mouse sensitivity didn't seem to fix this issue. I don't have this problem in other games. I missed out on an easy kill on a guy like 20m away who didn't even see me, only for him to turn and kill me before I got my aim squared away, after spending a long time running to the frontline from the rear, purely because I couldn't get this jumpy imprecise mouseaim on target fast enough. c) I already had to solve another technical issue by having someone inform me that I needed to find my anticheat application and "repair" it. 2. Server problems. a) There's only a couple servers that have good ping, and I'm in the pacific northwest of the USA. b) The servers that do have people and have good ping, are full 24/7, and there's a line to get in. 3. Gameplay problems. My first game highlighted all the same problems that exist with ARMA or WW2OL. Says to select spawn. Not sure if there even are any options. Click around the map. End up spawning back at the starting base and have to run to the frontline. No clear indication of what the goal is, what my team is doing, or what I should be doing. No clear indication of any leadership taking place. I run to the general area of where I know the enemy line is intersecting with ours, crouch around until I find an enemy, and die because of problems with mouse aim not working properly. I know from my experience in other games that with time I may discover this is not always the case. I also know that with effort I may be able to use the tools to create the leadership and teamwork that I don't currently see happening. However, the developers need to seriously reconsider how to make this all streamlined and apparent for new players if they want to grow their base. I know these issues were a common problem that held WW2OL back from retaining new players. No clear sense of direction, what are they suppose to do, where are they suppose to go, run run run, bang you're dead. Now go do it all over again, running in from the rear base, without any more clarity/direction/leadership than you had the first time. Because I've already been through all that and overcame it in other games, I'm no stranger to it in Squad. However, in light of the technical and server issues, I find myself questioning if it's worth taking a chance that the gameplay in Squad will end up living up to my expectations of something that solves the travel time and teamplay problems in games like WW2OL or ARMA. I have to request a refund from steam before I hit the 2 hours played mark. I'm already at 1.6 hours played and maybe 90% of that time was not actually playing the game but trying to sort out technical issues at the settings screen, alt-tabbing to ask questions on forums, loading the game because it takes forever, reloading the game after restarting my computer because the game went black and my screen seemed to be frozen, and then finally waiting in queue for a server, and taking forever to load the game once I get in the server. If it wasn't for these technical issues, and if the servers support was there, I would probably easily overlook this bad initial experience and keep trying to figure out how it works. But by this point I'm already about done with the game for other reasons because it just doesn't want to let me play.
×