Jump to content
PuddleMurda

The pitfall that is community feedback

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, PuddleMurda said:

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.

A huge number of BF payers will suddenly buy Post Scriptum and bombard the forums? Yeah right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

 

17 hours ago, PuddleMurda said:

 

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. 

Can we perhaps test the system before we go crazy about it....... As a SL I will force my squad to have 2 medics in future since medics will still be a essential part of keeping the squad effective. 

Edited by Romby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

And by the way perhaps you should read these parts of your own original post again. Are you not one off the guys trying to influence the devs because they are adding something you don't like? Because that is all I see. You want to influence devs to take the direction of the game you want because your opinion is somehow the truth and when the devs doesnt follow it is because "the minority of players posting on forum/reddit" influenced them. Perhaps the devs vision for the game is not what you wanted? Perhaps your opinion is not the truth.

 

On 21.8.2018 at 2:33 PM, PuddleMurda said:

How often is an argument posted along the lines of "There is a limit to how much xxxx 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 xxx that can be implemented before YOU find it boring" and "That would drive YOU away because insert: appeal to emotion".

(I changed realism to xxx in your above quote)

.....

Quote

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".

Isn't what is mentioned the above quote from you excatly what you are doing about the new revive system that you haven't even tested?

Edited by Romby

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I concur with many of your points in your OP PuddleMurda.

 

On 8/21/2018 at 3:27 PM, PuddleMurda said:

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.


In regards to above quote, here's a post of fuzzhead (who's the gameplay designer since spring this year) dating back to january this year (before he officially became a dev), where he lays out ideas for a game mode he had in mind. the points about ticket bleed/rush and medic system both have striking similarities to what we've seen for the upcoming changes in squad:

 
So just like Romby I'm all for trying it out first before I start to criticize this decision.

 

Sorry for actually going off-topic by addressing your specific example. Just wanted to emphasize my impression of OWI doing what they want to do after all since that seems to be the point where you lost the notion of them doing so.

Edited by sgt_froug
edited for just about everything

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

@Romby and @sgt_froug

 

On 8/21/2018 at 2:33 PM, PuddleMurda said:

the actual playerbase is misrepresented by a small percentage of frequent forum posters, such as myself

 

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.

Edited by PuddleMurda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kids want to run and gun, adults want to strategize, plan, win the game using tactics and skill.  But racing to an objective and being first is important too.  It's all about terrain and equipment, and assets at hand that dictates strategy.  Do you go with a hammer or use stealth, go in in great numbers or use a small force?  What is the overall objective?  To capture the point or destroy an asset?  It's all in the design of game I think. And everyone has their preference. But feedback is always good even if not everyone agrees what is best. Discussions bring new ideas and other points of view.

Share this post


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

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. 

 

Alot of this is quite doable in a mod, and we encourage players to make said mods, and I will be right there ready to play this stuff cause alot of it sounds like it would be a lot of fun to try out!!!

 

Although I admit waiting til modding 2.0 comes out is probably a smart choice, since right now it is harder to get alot of traction for a mod, but as seen in the SquadOps and SWC mods, it is possible, but it will be easier in the future.

 

Btw theres already a 3 minute staging phase in Squad, which will be increased to 4 minute staging phase for V12. Along with some new map UI hopefully will make SL tacticalplanning a little more prevalent in public play.

 

And when eventually a Command role is added maybe we can bring it to the full 5 minutes.

 

It's a forum to post ideas, don't worry we won't take your feedback to heart 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

im not sure i can stretch my pee stop to 4 mins... already have at least 60 seconds of bumping against the invisible wall at the start of every round.

 

5mins...enough time to cook some noodles and watch the news headlines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Feedback is important. There is no such thing as negative feedback in general. There are obviously certain ways people communicate that don't have a lot or anything to do with feedback, but those people think it is feedback.

 

Good devs "read" all feedback, but have enough direction and backbone not act on every piece of feedback. Feedback is often about seeing and understanding a different point of view or perspective. That does not mean you have to agree to it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember back at the beginning of this forum where any suggestion or feedback that certain groups didn't like was pounced on and caused them anger, like the developers were just going to implement it the next day.  LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2018 at 10:27 AM, fuzzhead said:

Alot of this is quite doable in a mod, and we encourage players to make said mods, and I will be right there ready to play this stuff cause alot of it sounds like it would be a lot of fun to try out!!!

 

Although I admit waiting til modding 2.0 comes out is probably a smart choice, since right now it is harder to get alot of traction for a mod, but as seen in the SquadOps and SWC mods, it is possible, but it will be easier in the future.

 

Btw theres already a 3 minute staging phase in Squad, which will be increased to 4 minute staging phase for V12. Along with some new map UI hopefully will make SL tacticalplanning a little more prevalent in public play.

 

And when eventually a Command role is added maybe we can bring it to the full 5 minutes.

 

It's a forum to post ideas, don't worry we won't take your feedback to heart 

 

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. 

Edited by PuddleMurda

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 21/08/2018 at 2:27 PM, PuddleMurda said:

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.

I disagree, this does nothing to the medic role at all, people want the medic to be more important not nerfed...

 

I also disagree with the whole idea that listening to your player base is a bad idea or that you seem to think that Devs are sitting there waiting for the next idea to be produced by the crowd and do nothing all day except code everyones ideas...lets take Post Scriptum as an example, the devs in an interview had the attitude that its their game they will do what they want to do and thats it.   Now I get that up to a point but certain things they had to listen to the community because the game was being hurt because of their intransigence and they made some changes.   

 

I think the devs have done a great job of filtering out the less than polite ranting fix the game now or I leave idiots, the I have a great idea and you gotta listen never coded in their lives keyboard warriors, and genuine fans supporting the game and trying to improve it with fresh or not so fresh ideas. 

 

Devs are allowed to make mistakes you know, not all implementations are going to work and its only in game play that you find out how good or bad that idea is, and of course how players will exploit those ideas, you can only get that through feedback.  It is also not the fault of the fans who are more vocal and take a great pride and interest in the game and feel that they may contribute to its improvement, whilst the majority of casual players do not. 

 

In fact your whole post is only seen because the game devs provide the forum to do so, and you are of course entitled to that opinion but suggesting that the DEVS will be more creative without the input of players is like saying when building a plane you would never speak to pilots.

 

 

Edited by embecmom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/7/2018 at 11:04 AM, PuddleMurda said:

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 assure you, there's no development team in the world that sets out to make their less than perfect product. The problems generally start when you run into finite money, time, and skills. =) Which leads to...

 

On 9/7/2018 at 11:04 AM, PuddleMurda said:

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? 

Not necessarily true. You're still talking about years of development time prior to release, on-going development costs (continuing education, hosting, office space, recruiting, publishing costs, advertising, etc.) Ideally, it opens up the ability to acquire the best talent with the best ideas, but you still have to take into consideration that you're paying humans for their time, and they have other needs. Which doesn't necessarily touch on the dynamics of project planning: if you can do super awesome rocket launcher skins to the most realistic degree, or you can flesh out the sound system, or you can add a new map -- which you can do depends on the team you have, the time they have, the other resources you can throw at it, what the rest of the team is doing (coding time may be required to implement new art, etc.), what the goals for the given phase of work are, etc. And since no company works alone these days, there are considerations like anti-cheat software, engine updates, and cool stuff like tree generation middleware.

 

I guess the takeaway might be as much as we want video games to be art, and perfect art, it's still a business with a lot of humans involved. =)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It amazes me that people can't see that. I'm a cynic at the best of times, but not matter what conspiracists may believe at their most fevered-dreamed or rational alike, certain realities apply at all times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/23/2018 at 8:41 AM, PuddleMurda said:

@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.

Good thing you aren't on the dev team .... lol.  I know some people enjoy that level of realism but good god that sounds terrible.

Share this post


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

Good thing you aren't on the dev team .... lol.  I know some people enjoy that level of realism but good god that sounds terrible.

I think This type of comment is exactly what the OP meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/15/2018 at 2:41 AM, Nightingale87 said:

I think This type of comment is exactly what the OP meant.

Point being not every Idea is great and not every idea gets put in the game.  That isn't our job.  If my idea sucks, please tell me. Because I will tell you.

Edit:  Not to mention I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about things already in the game, not about ideas from another user on the forums.  I would agree that "I dont like this" posts referring to the current state of the game are not needed.  Maybe you should re-read the OP.

Edited by Kodagobang
Clarity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kodagobang said:

Point being not every Idea is great and not every idea gets put in the game.  That isn't our job.  If my idea sucks, please tell me. Because I will tell you.

Edit:  Not to mention I'm pretty sure the OP was talking about things already in the game, not about ideas from another user on the forums.  I would agree that "I dont like this" posts referring to the current state of the game are not needed.  Maybe you should re-read the OP.

Mate. If you re-read the OP, you will realize that he was making a point about how initial responses are many times quite basics and dont really place any arguments on the table, but just write a line driven by emotion without thinking about the suggested idea too much.

 

Furthermore, they tend to be negative and recreate a negative atmosphere of tensión between posters.

 

Now right after quoting hte OPs well organised and presented arguments (with which i don´t totally agree) This is what you wrote:

On ‎15‎/‎09‎/‎2018 at 6:28 AM, Kodagobang said:

Good thing you aren't on the dev team .... lol.  I know some people enjoy that level of realism but good god that sounds terrible.

You start by directly attacking the OP by saying that it´s a "good thing he isnt on the dev team"

 

Then you just type "lol".

 

Finally you express that it sounds like a bad idea. Don´t take me wrong I think it´s fantastic that you get to express your opinion and you may not like what the OP is saying. But... you didn´t really say anything. No reasons, no arguments, not much to work with. 

 

And I think that´s exactly one of the things the OP meant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Nightingale87 said:

Mate. If you re-read the OP, you will realize that he was making a point about how initial responses are many times quite basics and dont really place any arguments on the table, but just write a line driven by emotion without thinking about the suggested idea too much.

 

Furthermore, they tend to be negative and recreate a negative atmosphere of tensión between posters.

 

Now right after quoting hte OPs well organised and presented arguments (with which i don´t totally agree) This is what you wrote:

You start by directly attacking the OP by saying that it´s a "good thing he isnt on the dev team"

 

Then you just type "lol".

 

Finally you express that it sounds like a bad idea. Don´t take me wrong I think it´s fantastic that you get to express your opinion and you may not like what the OP is saying. But... you didn´t really say anything. No reasons, no arguments, not much to work with. 

 

And I think that´s exactly one of the things the OP meant.

Clearly he wasn't insulted and got the joke.  Clearly you did not. Getting upset over "lol" is something I don't understand.  lol normally signals that there was some sort of joke implied.  How you saw past that I don't know.  I went on to say that some players might enjoy that realism but (to me) that sounds awful.

Here's what I think.  Taking away hud elements is bad, people don't even understand half of them anyway.  Only showing SL's on map is bad, why should I not be able to see my friends on the map?  Placing one limit hab is bad, oh SL4 just put a fob down next to our Main, cool.  Disabling vehicle respawn is bad, Hey squad 4 just trolled us and drove our BTR into their first cap.  Adding more time before the start of the game is bad, SL's don't even use the 90 seconds appropriately, most are afk or not communicating. Why in the hell would we wait another 180 seconds on top of that?.  No-revive headshots are bad, it's a video game.  If I was on the opposing team none of you are getting res'd and I know i'm not the best shot out there.


There are plenty of milsim experiences that can offer you that.  Squad isn't as tactical as it could be and that's why many people enjoy it. 

That's how feedback works.  If I didn't think the ideas were half bad, I would say "hey that's not half bad, what about this".  If you propose an idea that doesn't seem appropriate (exceeding squads milsim capacity) I will glady step in to say, no thanks!

You can use my name too, i'm not your Mate :)

Edit: I will say that my response was short, I could have explained it more.  But honestly those ideas are 100% changing the game and I think the devs have the right path.  I've enjoyed every patch, asked for a few things here and there but these are 100% changing the game.  Don't expect people to say oh yeah lets try it when you are trying to change something that doesn't need fixing, especially in a game that people care about.

 

Edited by Kodagobang
P.s.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm actually just so tired of this safespace bullshit.  It's the internet.  If your idea sucks don't expect someone to be patting you on the back saying "hey its okay maybe we will look into it:)))))"  

Feedback is exactly that, and here are the only 3 examples you should need.

hey what you think about this?  I love it!  Lets see if we can get the devs to notice us.

hey what do you think about this?  It's okay, have you thought about this? (ENTER YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS)

hey what do you think about this?  It's dogshit.

Share this post


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

I'm actually just so tired of this safespace bullshit.  It's the internet.  If your idea sucks don't expect someone to be patting you on the back saying "hey its okay maybe we will look into it:)))))"  

Feedback is exactly that, and here are the only 3 examples you should need.

hey what you think about this?  I love it!  Lets see if we can get the devs to notice us.

hey what do you think about this?  It's okay, have you thought about this? (ENTER YOUR THOUGHTS AND OPINIONS)

hey what do you think about this?  It's dogshit.

I agree up to a point, the internet has allowed many that should not have an opinion and opportunity to air it .... !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kodagobang said:

Here's what I think.  Taking away hud elements is bad, people don't even understand half of them anyway.  Only showing SL's on map is bad, why should I not be able to see my friends on the map?  Placing one limit hab is bad, oh SL4 just put a fob down next to our Main, cool.  Disabling vehicle respawn is bad, Hey squad 4 just trolled us and drove our BTR into their first cap.  Adding more time before the start of the game is bad, SL's don't even use the 90 seconds appropriately, most are afk or not communicating. Why in the hell would we wait another 180 seconds on top of that?.  No-revive headshots are bad, it's a video game.  If I was on the opposing team none of you are getting res'd and I know i'm not the best shot out there.

 

Thank you!

Now we know what you feel like...and why. And we have some arguments. Now that´s feedback. Even if you use expresisons like "dogshit" here and there, we can now actually talk about something. That´s pretty much what the OP was asking for. Thank you for extending your answer.

 

Still. Things such as more or less realism can be discussed elsewhere. 

 

It´s quite obvious by now that I agree with the OPs point about how feedback is driven. How people present their ideas. How they are discussed. And how people agree or disagree in a more civilised manner than internet usually incites. 

 

There´s a number of ideas out there in This forum that I don´t really like. And I think those ideas are not going to be good for the game (or what I want to see in the game). There are some ideas that dont even sound like they are for This videogame!!!... Still… if I don´t agree, I either explain why, without any comment that may offend the poster, or i don´t say anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Still think a hardcore option for ervers would simply be a resolution to the particular debate / argument you two have been having. I genuinely would play, and love, a no hud, no players on map etc. version of the game. Equally, I'd still play, and love, the current form. I'd imagine there would be enough players to accomodate both styles and if not, one would simply become a much less common server setting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, TheRed said:

Still think a hardcore option for ervers would simply be a resolution to the particular debate / argument you two have been having. I genuinely would play, and love, a no hud, no players on map etc. version of the game. Equally, I'd still play, and love, the current form. I'd imagine there would be enough players to accomodate both styles and if not, one would simply become a much less common server setting.

Sure!...

 

I agree with you completely. So many issues and demands could be adressed by just creating/allowing mods or modes for specific demands. HArdcore mode, simulation mode, vs arcade/light mode/standard mode...any name.

 

I´m pretty sure that will come eventually. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×