Jump to content
Barangolo

New approach to game balance that benefits all and boosts game reputation

Recommended Posts

Barangolo

Dear Nikita and developer team, dear mods, please consider following concept without closing down the topic as an old story, as this version has NOT been commented on by you and I am sure it will only bring good changes to the game's future playerbase.
The concept: create Server group #1 and Server group #2, where solo players have the option to play either group #1 or #2, but teams only have the option to play on group #1. This is NOT the same as separate servers for solo and teams, as with the latter solo players do NOT have the choice to play against squads. With this setup however, you give players a choice to enjoy the game more.
There is a significant list of benefits to this setup and I am sure you know the drawbacks, feel free to comment on those through the mods and please allow for a discussion instead of individual mods' personal opinions or closing down based on what mood mods are in. Let's have a mature discussion on this, so all the players see what your take is on this setup.

The current issues it solves, first in bullitpoints:
1. Dominance through raid pop cap
2. Gear securing advantage
3. Camping
4. Hatchet runners
5. Scav vs PMC
6. Low- and High-levels are all dissatisfied
7. Variety in raid choice
8. Number of engagements
9. Server cost

1. The technical limit of player count per map basically results in a squad dominating the map, as 4 people in a group means that much less solo players can spawn in. The result: a squad basically farms a map without resistance and may not even meet a solo player on bigger maps. On Factory however it means killing a maximum of 2 solo players and from then on free farming of AI. This leads to absurd progression of teams in this stash-based game, especially in terms of looting teams get richer much faster. It also leads to much less firefights, as the more people enter a raid in a team, the less the odds of chance encounters. This really needs to stop as it is irrealistic and leads to onesided benefits.
2. Squads have a major advantage in stowing away fallen buddies' gear or hiding it from other players for insurance. The more players team up, the lower the chance of loosing gear or hidden gear to be found by other players. In Factory they don't even need to hide it once the remaining 1-2 PMC is killed. Ironically all of your excellent videos show firefights between squads: I have almost never seen this happen in hundreds of raids. The reason is the mixed servers.
3. Camping is on the rise and when in teams, it means these players do not take part in the game for the 20-30min that they are sitting at one spot without getting involved in any action or looting, just wait for those who worked for their buck and through numbers, a team can easily take the loot. Without going into the discussion whether camping is a valid strategy, it clearly means that the intent of having players engage in firefights gets diminished significantly as soon as whole teams camp.
4. Hatchet runners: I have seen teams of hatchet runners, have seen hatchet runners suicide in front of a streamer while clearly pointing the finger that there is nothing a normally geared player can do against this exploit, most hatchet runners I killed are above level 30-40 and they are on the rise. By having teams on the same map as geared players, the player slots that hatchet runners take away from the maximum number of players in a raid means they have a much easier job in looting Resort for example. A tactic I saw lately is a single guy geared and the rest naked, to at least offer some resistance against scavs and have it even easier for hatchet runners. If they meet teams, they will think twice about not gearing up.
5. Scav players even spawn before PMC's sometimes or at better location, Interchange being a prime example, where a scav player spawns inside and by the time the PMC arrives from the edge of the map, the scav player is camping some dark corner. When in teams, scav players can not only loot most of the value in the tech stores, but also get guns and ammo from the crates without being hindered by AI, which leads to high odds that a scav crew can beat even a fully geared solo PMC, I see this happen all the time on Twitch streams. Which is absurd, as spawn times for good reason have been designed to give PMC's some time to loot or engage in combat before the vultures arrive. Mixed servers lead to gear and engagement avoidance because of these imbalances as well.
6. All players have different skill levels, some will never be good and some are God-like players. The lower levels mostly hope to avoid others as they know what the outcome is and stick to killing AI, while the best of the best are hunting others and enjoy it especially when a squad comes their way as it is the ultimate thrill to fight against overmight. You cannot please both groups currently, as all raids are mixed. In fact, this way all players are worse off: weaker players find it too difficult to cope with meeting not only all levels but squads as well. Top players have much less challenge as most players are solo and hardly a challenge for them, the result being boredom, leaving top players play Labs or Reserve only, farm Killa for the outfit, etc. I find it shocking that you are basing decisions on opinions of streamers like Pestily, but if you do, be aware that the current setup makes gameplay boring for him too and his audience as well, no wonder he is looking forward to going to Europe and play on popping servers to have a challenge. By making it optional to choose team or solo server, the solo players will feel much more chances to survive firefights, at the same time the daredevils can enter squad servers as much as they want and the solo players they meet there are likely also good players, while they get their kicks from the teams there as well. This way, everyone can play what makes the game most exciting for them.
7. This optional choice makes for more variety for everyone: even the really good players who want to fight squads will not have to do this all the time. When a top player has been fighting squads and needs a breather, he can enter a solo server any time. This brings more variety to the playstyle than before, when a top player rarely met a squad.
8. There may be a counter-rationale that if you only let squads play against each other, it will not have solo players on the same map fighting each other and the squads too will see less action with less solo players around. That's a false argument, as you as developers decide how to set the caps, so let's look at the numbers. Take an example of a current map with 10 PMC's, of which 4 players in a squad means 6 solo PMC's, plus 10 scav players allowed in later. If we consider that the PMC's need to get into the action and not avoid it by a lootrun, it means the game has chance on encounters of 17 "units" (1 in squad, 6+10 solo), resulting in chance encounters (or forced through central loot locations like now at Dorms, KIBA or Resort). If you give servers different purposes, on solo-only servers the solo players will have a higher number of encounters as they will play against solo players only, in addition matching players will be easier due to higher numbers. The team-based servers on the other hand will need less servers due to less players obviously, so player numbers are the same in-raid. If using the same server population cap of 20 players if technical limits are the issue, the squad server can probably have 5 teams of 2-4 players and about 5 scav players in addition. The number of "units" are then 10 (5 teams and 5 scav players), compared to the 17 before. However, since players will be teamed, there will be less avoidance of fights due to available firepower. Spotting will increase a lot (partly because you get spotted much easier, partly because you spot easier yourself when having more pairs of eyes), resulting in a comparable number of firefights as on a mixed server, but on much higher quality of course than the squad wiping the solo players they come across. In addition, there will always be some solo players entering, if it is true that many like this thrill of going up against teams. There are many ways of influencing team servers on top of this: make AI more demanding, different loot tables to centralize firefights more, etc., team servers will simply be the "hard" mode of Tarkov.  
9. I am sure concepts like this are approached mostly from a cost aspect, being server costs. I doubt this needs to come at higher cost however, may in fact make server loads more evened out if you restrict teams to less servers, as currently there is a huge array of servers we can all choose from, which assumes either that servers are never full anyway, or that there is a lot of room to restrict the choice of servers for everyone to fill them. The number of people wanting to play a certain way will not change total player numbers, that's a no brainer (unless major shifts take place suddenly, but that would mean players were waiting for this change). It is therefore in matching of players on servers that is relevant. I do not know player numbers of course (4000-5000 concurrent outside of events?..), but I'm sure it can be solved technically how you spread out players across raids. You can even prioritize this setup and if the game has such low popularity that you cannot populate the servers at all, then at least we know that you are not going bankrupt on server cost ;)

Some major benefits for BSG when planning the game for the future:
- Information need: There is a lot of unknowns to you devs as well when it comes to the playerbase's intentions. You have your own concept in the Tarkov universe, but I'm sure have many doubts how feasible it is and you are always adjusting/tweaking game aspects so you can reach your goals as best you can, without players exploiting the loopholes (hatchet running, market manipulation, etc.). Per definition you can never create a realistic game with only teams playing, when in real life players are people sitting at home and only those that team up with friends can play in squads (and mostly on weekends only due to separate lives), while real war is never lonely Rambos. So compromises need to be made, as you know well. With this server separation however, you will get to know a lot more about the players' real needs: do most of them really want to play in teams or rather solo? You can WANT them to team up, but ask yourself the question: will people leave the game if they have the option to play solo or will they leave when they are forced to team up when they do not enjoy playing solo due to mixed servers? You can also find out that all those shouting at the top of their lungs that they do not want separate servers because they love the unknown, whether these players will actually enter a squad server as a solo player, or whether they only wanted mixed servers so they can farm solo players in squads and they will not enter a team server as solo player?.. These separate servers will be a major reality check on how players REALLY play this game, not just how they say that they play it with their gitgud blabla. All this information will be useful for you to decide how much your ideals of a Tarkov universe can be aligned with your current playerbase. Let's be honest, if there is hardly anyone playing solo on a squad server, it will be a very strong statement about whether you should continue with only mixed servers..
- Publicity: Right now EFT does not have the reputation of a fair game, not just because of the technical issues but the gameplay and balance especially. Perhaps you do not care (when it comes to gameplay) and that is fine, but it does result in negative consequences for your future planning, both in finances as well as server capacity, your major variable cost, as well as the development costs (which you are spending based on playerbase size and needs), so pleasing more players and a good reputation in this can be crucial to implement your ideas in quality. Even the highly skilled streamers are being punished badly and while they can create an image of an exciting game, once most people start playing, a large number realises that the game is not for them as these challenges are not what they can surpass, for lack of skill or time or willpower. The fact that you do not give refunds results in a lot of anger and that's really not good PR to pull in new players. This is reflected quite well through the FB page where so many complain about the game and often blame the technical shortcomings, when really they just hate the fact that they are not surviving. If you make the game more balanced, I am 100% convinced that its reputation will improve tremendously and this free advertising will be able to give it more longevity than the smart promos like the past few weeks, as the latter gives it a boost but will not result in more satisfied players. If anything, the technical issues that these peaks result in (same during fresh patch release, which is when suddenly the huge dormant playerbase plays for a few weeks before the servers get their usual dip), are much worse for the game's reputation than having a solid evaluation by the majority of the playerbase because of a more balanced gameplay, so players play longer after a wipe and you can plan server capacity better with less deviation in player numbers than with the current huge peaks around the wipe.

Last but not least: to implement such feature is an OPTION. You can always change it. You are in Beta, you do whatever you want. At this stage of development, you can test these features easily, so ask yourself what is the worst that can happen? If it turns out that less than 5% of solo players will regularly want to enter squad servers as a solo player, it pretty much proves that the voices of "we love mixed servers because anything can happen" is nothing more than an excuse to farm solo players with your squad. If it turns out that many solo players will play team servers constantly, it proves that people want a challenge and this feature will have them hooked longer instead of getting bored quickly after they max out anyting they can and desert the game until the next wipe. If the whole concept utterly fails and people only complain, you can return to the usual mixed servers. If people will desert the game who felt more confident in teams because of overmight and now suddenly their odds are evened out as they have to fight other teams, is that really a loss for the game or an improvement of its playerbase? People who play like that do it for all the wrong reasons and they are most often those cheesing their way through leveling, exploiting loopholes and lootfarming. It would rather prove that those people are simply lazy or cowards and will most likely continue playing anyway, but as solo players, player numbers will not diminish compared to the large number of people who will now be playing with more fun in solos.
If you are afraid that the ideas of Nikita to motivate people to team up will be less as it will be more "convenient" to play on a solo server, I think you are out of touch with just how difficult most players find the game. I am convinced that if players team up for the sole reason of better odds for survival and not to have fun or to get better, it is detrimental to the game. If people are given a choice to decide for themselves and choose rather to play on solo servers and not team up, they will stay playing the game longer than if they do something they are forced to do and maybe not enjoy it along the way.

If you managed to read to the end, thank you for your interest. I hope these thoughts are worth to consider in the Beta stage, I have taken the liberty to sum these based on not just my personal opinion, but the dozens of similar posts and hundreds of voices on the forum, confirming that right now the mixed server setup is bad for a lot of players and there are better options that can be tried out to get a clear picture on what players want and how to attract more players.
Those forum readers who are not devs or mods and who cannot react to this post in a mature way, please just don't, you only embarrass yourself by not adding to the discussion. Nobody is interested in your toxicity and you don't have to read a post just to react your anger to something you probably did not understand in the first place. If you are afraid something will change for the worse, I guarantee it will be for the better for most, as server choice becomes OPTIONAL, so you can still go fight geared squads alone with a hatchet for all I care. If you like farming noobs in squads however, I hope it will not last long and your anger is that of a spoilt kid who can no longer throw his food without it being taken away from his plate. Don't be that kid.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kaokane

this like 30th topic about causal crying about squads wreaking them i play solo ive never played in team i love it when i go toe to toe with squads yes it sucks if i get rekt by 5 man team but when i take out 5 man team the feeling is amazing i dont like solo only servers cuase all thats gonna do his put all the hatchet runners on 1 map in 1 server then u force ppl to play in teams or deal with hatchet runners getting all the loot on solo only server 

so no solo or team servers its fine just way it is  and in wise words of a great man (GET GUD)

Edited by kaokane
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barangolo
22 minutes ago, kaokane said:

this like 30th topic about causal crying about squads wreaking them i play solo ive never played in team i love it when i go toe to toe with squads yes it sucks if i get rekt by 5 man team but when i take out 5 man team the feeling is amazing i dont like solo only servers cuase all thats gonna do his put all the hatchet runners on 1 map in 1 server then u force ppl to play in teams or deal with hatchet runners getting all the loot on solo only server 

so no solo or team servers its fine just way it is  and in wise words of a great man (GET GUD)

Here we go, the literate kid.. The last sentences were meant for you bud. Keep your saltiness for yourself, go throw your food at home.

You are not adding to the conversation, just causing confusion. If you would have read the first few sentences, you would have understood that you misread to start with: the fact that server choice would be OPTIONAL, means that you can play as a solo against squads any time. So nobody stops you being the hero, you Champ.

Understand the difference?

Edited by Barangolo
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Synergy2525

Every player can play their own way. If they want to team up they can team up. If they want to run solo, they can.  If they want to “camp” they can. I watched a stream last night where the player threw a bag in the open and waited and waited.  Someone would show up they would shoot and do it again. This is all about having fun. Whichever way you as a player plays, as long as you have fun. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barangolo
19 hours ago, Synergy2525 said:

Every player can play their own way. If they want to team up they can team up. If they want to run solo, they can.  If they want to “camp” they can. I watched a stream last night where the player threw a bag in the open and waited and waited.  Someone would show up they would shoot and do it again. This is all about having fun. Whichever way you as a player plays, as long as you have fun. 

My suggestion is actually helping people to play they want, but also those who do not want to be a victim of imbalances: if you want to play solo, you play solo, if you want to play in a team, you play in a team. If you want to camp, you camp. This new suggestion adds the following option: you can play solo on servers where there are no teams. You can play solo on servers where there are no squads camping an exit or spawn. You can play in a team and meet other teams without being "lucky".

Sounds like a win-win, do you agree? ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Richard4Ponies

This would actually be a nice bonus for me, I would much rather have a progression allowing tweak to offline mode, but this would be a step forward from my view :D

I only like PvP when I'm playing 'with' my team in the first, and the reason is 'explicitly' because it's no fun to have your run ruined by a full squad seeing a target that's even easier than AI scavs to take out. 

also, alas, you just gotta accept that there's going to be assholes out there, who look at someone wanting an experience different from theres [that is to say, neither being the victim nor the perpetrator of 'pwning the newbs to get their rocks off abusing the easy targets'] and react to it like an animal that's been challenged... I think they're just mad because it's an option that will force 'them' to face more challenging opponents and have less free loot pinatas on the map.

On the other side, you 'get gud' obsessed people have to accept, that some people just don't want to dedicate all their time to mastering the game so that they can stand a chance against a massive one sided experience. XD Hell, that's why 'Eve online' had to go free to play, their veterans needed more fodder to enjoy because all the ones who'd been willing to pay for it before ran out thanks to the guilds that tormented new players for fun.

 

Also, on the subject of 'players playing whatever way they find fun', what if they find fun in a mode that has less 'getting steamrolled in the first few minutes so they actually have time to learn the game and get better'? And offline mode doesn't count because it offer 'zero' progression.

you gotta remember, your arguments like that also apply to the people you're trying to tell off about wanting a different experience than you do.

Edited by Richard4Ponies

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p4nnus
On 1/13/2020 at 3:17 PM, Barangolo said:

The concept: create Server group #1 and Server group #2, where solo players have the option to play either group #1 or #2, but teams only have the option to play on group #1. This is NOT the same as separate servers for solo and teams, as with the latter solo players do NOT have the choice to play against squads. With this setup however, you give players a choice to enjoy the game more.

Nope, wont happen. It has been confirmed eons ago. There wont be any specific servers, everybody will play on the same ones. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barangolo
1 hour ago, Richard4Ponies said:

I think they're just mad because it's an option that will force 'them' to face more challenging opponents and have less free loot pinatas on the map.

I'm pretty sure that is the case in most occasions. It is probably also the main reason in this game for people who team up with strangers via Discord, rather than for enjoying the concept of teamplay. I have had discussion on the forum before with people complaining about how difficult it is to play in teams, which is absurd, as it proves they do not play in teams for enjoyment but for an advantage vs solo players, at the cost of enjoying the game. It is different when people have friends they regularly play in teams with, though even then there is a definite element of rather with the buddies than alone, as the challenge is bigger alone.

No matter whether we assume it though, the great thing about making separate servers with the OPTION of entering a teamplayer server as a solo player, is that the devs will be perfectly able to monitor user behaviour and draw their conclusions: if the number of solo players entering teamplayer servers is neglectable or suddenly the number of solo players increases, all the loudmouth fanboys were just talking and are actually afraid of the challenge. It would prove that the game needs these separate servers, as the vast majority of solo players does NOT WANT to play against squads. It would also prove that the devs were just pleasing teamplayers so they have it easy, which is unacceptable for a game they call "hardcore".

I'm afraid though that beside the cost and complexity arguments, the devs are afraid to put this to the test as it may prove that their dream of mixed servers has failed. I hope my above reasoning will make them think though, as it holds mostly benefits on the long run and you have to admit when you were wrong to stick to something that has not been proven.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barangolo
1 hour ago, p4nnus said:

Nope, wont happen. It has been confirmed eons ago. There wont be any specific servers, everybody will play on the same ones. 

Well, you can live in the past and choose to accept things that you never considered could be different. But I'm sure you have an opinion. I would rather be interested in that opinion on my OP: do you agree with the conclusions or not? Since it feels like you do not want to agree, would you care to explain what it is that you do not agree with specifically?

Just stating a status quo does not add to the discussion, so please feel free to give your opinion on how things should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Synergy2525

The servers are struggling as of current aren’t they?  Adding more would only slow the game down further right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p4nnus
1 hour ago, Barangolo said:

Well, you can live in the past and choose to accept things that you never considered could be different. But I'm sure you have an opinion. I would rather be interested in that opinion on my OP: do you agree with the conclusions or not? Since it feels like you do not want to agree, would you care to explain what it is that you do not agree with specifically?

Just stating a status quo does not add to the discussion, so please feel free to give your opinion on how things should be.

If OP and you would use the search function you could read what has been said before about it. Both my and BSG responses to the suggestion. My response in a nutshell: we dont need it, it would be a watered down version of what EFT is meant to be and it would split the player base.

Also, EFT was always meant to be played in a squad. If you or OP didnt know about this, its your fault for not doing your homework. Going solo in a combat/SERE situation is a tactical suicide, anyone going in solo in EFT accepts this. The game wont be changed just because some players play it in a way that was not intended.

Edited by p4nnus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Musashii89
8 hours ago, p4nnus said:

It would split the player base.

 

This is why it wont happen, there are already complaints of queue times and there is no quicker way to kill an online game then to exacerbate that with more gametypes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barangolo
On 1/14/2020 at 5:29 PM, p4nnus said:

My response in a nutshell: we dont need it, it would be a watered down version of what EFT is meant to be and it would split the player base.

Have you ever eaten soup with a fork? Indeed you haven't. Lunch is the goal, the cutlery is just a means. The devs dreamt of a good meal but prepared the wrong cutlery for it and are not willing to change the fork to a spoon, instead are trying to think of new ways how to bend the same fork over and over. I am not discussing the soup (=the goal) here, but the cutlery (=the means to this end), because of course I want to leave the creative vision to the game's developers and part of the fun is being surprised in this. But if they use the wrong means to make a good end product, I try to voice my opinion on how they could better achieve their vision and give suggestions, for which I list reasons that we can discuss. Repeating their vision as a reason why nothing should be touched is a misunderstanding of the whole discussion.

So let's not mix up the GOALS that the devs meant to achieve and the MEANS with which they meant to achieve it, as the two are not the same. You may want to achieve a loot&shoot game where people engage in combat (this is a goal), and you may want to achieve this by creating a mixed server (this is a means), but if your goal does not get achieved through the means that you want to implement it, it is time to get back to the drawing board. A good developer sees the difference and does not stick to methods that have proven not to work. Currently the game bleeds out of so many wounds that if the devs would do refunds and launch it on Steam with an open review system, it would be dragged down so hard and their funding cut short so badly that they could no longer sell it to newbies, not even with all the fancy window dressing that the streamers do for them. The avoidance strategy played by many (hatchet runs, camping, exploitative teamplay to cheese leveling, etc.) shows that people do not play the game as the devs meant it to be. The measures the devs put in place are forcefully trying to hold back this avoidance behaviour, see introduction of food/drink, need for out-of-raid healing/feeding, nerfing of the SC (no longer weapons or containers to be stowed away, esp. pistols), etc. It is the wrong approach to try to force people though, as they will simply be avoiding the "pain" of strict measures even more, on top of the avoidance strategies they had in place already, so you can expect more camping and hatcheting as a response, instead of less.

When you say that the playerbase would be split by dedicating servers to solo and team/solo, what do you mean? If you mean that solo players who do not want to play against teams to be farmed will not be split from teams, then you are absolutely right and it is exactly why it would be a good thing. What is wrong with that? If you mean that there will be less players overall, I say the opposite and I have brought some rationales to base my thesis on, which you could read above. I am looking forward to your reasoning, because repeating the same statement over and over again without any rationales just proves that you have no logic behind what you say. It basically proves that you are wrong: looking at your soup and repeating it's steak because the waiter said so, will not make it steak.

On 1/14/2020 at 5:29 PM, p4nnus said:

Also, EFT was always meant to be played in a squad. If you or OP didnt know about this, its your fault for not doing your homework.

A number of things here.

First off, that's a pretty bold statement, almost sounds like you take it for granted that this is common knowledge before purchase. I do not see it reflected in any of their advertising on the website (which is the only source of information, since they are not advertising the game elsewhere, other than exposure through streamers). It is irrelevant what a dev says in a podcast that a few thousand people watch who already play the game, since they are no longer basing a buying decision on what is said there. All the new players are the ones who heard it word-of-mouth or saw streams of gameplay or promo videos on YT. But to avoid any misunderstandings on what you form in your head vs how the devs communicate the game, here's the literal quote from the official site's "About" section, first sentence:

"Escape from Tarkov is a hardcore and realistic online first-person action RPG/Simulator with MMO features and a story-driven walkthrough."

and it gets much more "solo" than that:

"in these conditions everyone has to make his own choices of what to do and how to get out of the chaos-ridden metropolis."

As for how you were meant to play it, this is quite specific:

"Complete raids on large scale locations with your friends or alone."

"or alone".. "alone" sounds like solo play to me in its fullest. "or" sounds like you actually have an option, which you really do, since queueing by default is solo, the optional part is entering with a group. It cannot get any more specific on how the game is meant to be as communicated by the devs, on the official site and in-game as well. So it is you who did not do his homework, just to be clear on this.

I would even go a step further here: either the devs have really poor advertising skills, or they do NOT actually want to steer people towards teamplay, as they are not making use of their only means of selling their game, the website. Nowhere in the listing of how the game should/can be played (31 bulletpoints!) does it tell you to "team up with friends or random players to learn team mechanics and utilize gameplay to its fullest", which should be the most evident way of motivating people to play in teams. This is either a big mistake by underutilizing this page or it was not mentioned on a purpose. The purpose being that if they make it clear from the start that teamplay has huge benefits, it would deter a lot of players from buying the game, who will never play solo or do not intend to. Not being clear about this aspect of the game leaves many players disappointed when expectations do not meet reality and we see this so often in the forum, on Reddit, FB, in stream chats. This I consider to be false advertising, especially if you are aware how much easier it is to play in teams or if you are actually as a dev intending people to play in teams.

Second, you are again stating a goal, not the means how to get there. If the devs meant the game to be played in teams, why is the vast majority playing it solo?.. Again, you may want to have a vision, but if that does not work with the way you design the game, you need to change your approach. By itself, it would be quite naive that a computer game would only be played in teams, as there would never be enough people that way to finance (commercial) development. Most gamers play alone against others and those playing it coop with friends or colleagues are in a minority, whether you like it or not, whether the devs like it or not. If they want to make it a solely teamplayer based game, they should sell it like that and many more features would be introduced to this end, like different roles and perks per role. Why they don't do it? Because they know very well that that would be the end of the game, as they would never have enough players to populate the servers. Even top ranking games that have coop mode are doing it on random teaming base, otherwise they would not be able to populate their servers. A game like EFT that does not have such massive playercount has even less chance to survive than now if solo play was not the main option. The devs know it, you perhaps do not understand this from what you are stating.

(PS: OP = Original Poster = me, I hoped you actually read the post before responding to it ;))

On 1/14/2020 at 5:29 PM, p4nnus said:

Going solo in a combat/SERE situation is a tactical suicide, anyone going in solo in EFT accepts this.

Let's just say that if this were the case, the game would be over really quick for lack of sales in a commercial market ;) You are exaggerating of course, but it does show very clearly that you agree with me that teamplay has such benefits in this game that it creates an enormous imbalance (though I would not go as far as to say that it's suicide and I'm sure the devs would never say it as it would be the worst PR ever :D ). I also have the feeling that you are assuming that most players play in teams, which I am really surprised about, as everyone playing this game knows that most players are playing solo, even if teams are on the rise. I really don't need to prove this: watch any stream and count the engagements, by far the largest number of players a streamer meets are solo players.

All in all, from your statements it is clear that not only do you not understand the way the game is sold, but you also agree with the imbalance and would like to keep it this way, saying that solo players have it worse off but that's their "fault", no matter they have been tricked into believing that this gamecan be enjoyed in solo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barangolo
On 1/15/2020 at 2:14 AM, Musashii89 said:

This is why it wont happen, there are already complaints of queue times and there is no quicker way to kill an online game then to exacerbate that with more gametypes.

More gametypes does not mean less players per server..  If the number of servers is a constant but the player type is mixed on servers, the only thing you do is channel people into servers with just solo or team+solo. The total number of servers does not need to change. If there are that much less people playing in teams, it just means that less servers will have teamplay raids on them than there will be solo only servers. The queue times will not need to change to any extent for teams as the player numbers remain the same per server/raid. Of course below a critical point you will not be able to populate servers anymore, but would that not mean that either there are too many servers, or that there is a serious minority of teamplayers? Which begs the question: does the game's server infrastructure serve the needs of the majority of players (solo) or the minority (teams), just to be able to have teams have a shorter queue time?.. If the devs want to sell the product and want satisfied customers, they do well to have an infrastructure in place that does not annoy the majority of the playerbase, just to please the minority.

There is a huge misunderstanding regarding queue times (as well). The game has poor infrastructural design and little money is invested into servers (which are too many, but that is probably to be able to have players have reasonable ping, otherwise the game would be one big ping-exploit mess), which is why you need to wait for many minutes. Current long EFT queue times are related to too many players on limited number of servers, not because of not enough players per server. This is the case even when there are only a few hundred players globally on the servers, during peaks hours a few thousand. Likewise, the much longer queue times you experience during the advertising tricks like the drops around Christmas and the fresh wipes, show the inability of the servers to cope with the sudden peaks. So irrespective of player numbers, a few hundred or tens of thousands, you will meet queue times. It is only a matter of proper peak planning by BSG, which is a financial decision and affects the profit margins.

The server dispersion is of course more complicated than this and I only wanted to pinpoint the basic logic of why "splitting" servers is misunderstood for having more servers and less players on each, resulting in long waiting times.

At the end of the day, the devs have a lot of options in hand to steer this process: the number of players per map/raid in total. The number of maps they develop. The total number of players they want for the game (pricing!). The game types, DLC, seasons, etc for long-term financing. All of these have technical limitations of course and I am sure the maps and player numbers are currently balanced in a way to allow for a reasonable raid time (max 1 hour instead of 3 hours or 20 minutes) which results in a reasonable map size (to be able to reach extract in time), which again results in a reasonable stress on a server (since landscaping, details and mechanics, AI and player numbers all stress a raid's capacity). They could change any of the parameters within reason if they wanted players to engage differently. For example changing the AI numbers/difficulty for team raids vs solo to enable faster queuing for teams during low spells, making smaller maps in case less players are expected to engage, etc. So server stress and queue times are pretty much in their hands. I am not saying it's easy in any way and I respect the way they managed so far, but it is clear that by simply enabling newer options like solo and team/solo separate raids would not automatically result in longer queue times, could in fact even improve these if designed properly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p4nnus
1 hour ago, Barangolo said:

of course I want to leave the creative vision to the game's developers and part of the fun is being surprised in this

Exactly. Their vision does not include separate modes which essentially lessen the surprise factor of not knowing what and who comes against you. The fact that it splits the player base is not as big of a deal if and when EFT has got so many players, but the nature of the game, the lore in which its set in, everything in EFT screams uncertainty and not knowing what the next raid will bring with it. Its realistic and intense, its what EFT is about. This is why it has been confirmed, numerous times, that separate matchmaking or for the sake of it, any matchmaking is not gonna be happening in EFT. Its always gonna be random. Arena mode could be different.

1 hour ago, Barangolo said:

The avoidance strategy played by many (hatchet runs, camping, exploitative teamplay to cheese leveling, etc.) shows that people do not play the game as the devs meant it to be. The measures the devs put in place are forcefully trying to hold back this avoidance behaviour, see introduction of food/drink, need for out-of-raid healing/feeding, nerfing of the SC (no longer weapons or containers to be stowed away, esp. pistols), etc. It is the wrong approach to try to force people though, as they will simply be avoiding the "pain" of strict measures even more, on top of the avoidance strategies they had in place already, so you can expect more camping and hatcheting as a response, instead of less.

And there are mechanics to combat such things, more to be introduced as well. If you would know of all the planned features, ones confirmed to be implemented at some point, you would know that the game is only gonna get harder, more HC. Hatchet runs wont be as profitable in the future. Camping is not camping in a HC FPS with combat realism to some point, its ambushing and easily countered if you have ANY idea what youre doing. So ambushing is not a problem, its just a strategy that can be used to varying degrees but in the end quite easily countered if you play tactically. Cheesing levels is also being worked on, it will be harder and harder in the future. The idea was always that you gain levels by doing certain things repetitively, its just gonna get tweaked so that you cant force your way to elite levels by just doing something outside of actual raiding. Forcing people is not always a bad choice. Thats why a gear score system, a system where you always need to have even a makarov and a scav vest, might be implemented to a) raid at all or b) use the container. In the end the most lucrative way will be to play the game as intended: with the best possible gear you have available and as carefully, cautiously and tactically as you can with your squad. 

1 hour ago, Barangolo said:

What is wrong with that?

The fact that you know what youre up against, this is against one of the core ideas of EFT and thus not gonna happen. It has been confirmed not to happen. It would make the game way less intense and HC. It would cater to people who play the game as it was not intended to be played. EFT is intended to be played as a squad as I already told you. BSG doesnt care if theres less players over all, EFT has already surpassed all expectations. If people preordered EFT without knowing what theyre getting in to, its their fault for being ignorant.

1 hour ago, Barangolo said:

A number of things here.

First off, that's a pretty bold statement, almost sounds like you take it for granted that this is common knowledge before purchase. I do not see it reflected in any of their advertising on the website (which is the only source of information, since they are not advertising the game elsewhere, other than exposure through streamers). It is irrelevant what a dev says in a podcast that a few thousand people watch who already play the game, since they are no longer basing a buying decision on what is said there. All the new players are the ones who heard it word-of-mouth or saw streams of gameplay or promo videos on YT. But to avoid any misunderstandings on what you form in your head vs how the devs communicate the game, here's the literal quote from the official site's "About" section, first sentence:

"Escape from Tarkov is a hardcore and realistic online first-person action RPG/Simulator with MMO features and a story-driven walkthrough."

and it gets much more "solo" than that:

"in these conditions everyone has to make his own choices of what to do and how to get out of the chaos-ridden metropolis."

As for how you were meant to play it, this is quite specific:

"Complete raids on large scale locations with your friends or alone."

"or alone".. "alone" sounds like solo play to me in its fullest. "or" sounds like you actually have an option, which you really do, since queueing by default is solo, the optional part is entering with a group. It cannot get any more specific on how the game is meant to be as communicated by the devs, on the official site and in-game as well. So it is you who did not do his homework, just to be clear on this.

I take it for granted as its embedded in the nature of what EFT is. A realistic combat simulator. Its not a 1:1 simulation of the real world nor is it trying to be. Not a milsim either. But it aims for certain kind of realism in where it matters the most, the combat. National armies nor PMCs quite literally never deploy solo operatives to combat missions, as theres strength in numbers. A single operator cant be relied to get the job done as its pretty usual that things go wrong/ things are different than what the intel suggest etc. EFT can be played alone, but its a tactical suicide. Theres the possibility of going in as a squad and youre at a huge advantage whilst doing so, this will also be reinforced by many announced squad play features that are yet to be implemented. In any game that goes for tactical shooter gameplay with realistic mechanics, playing together with others will always be beneficial and advantageous. 

Ofc EFT is not gonna restrict raiding to just squads, as not everyone has friends, online or at all, at all times. It also enables this possibility to beat the odds and come up on top even if you go against a big squad alone. There are benefits to going solo as well: its easier to play sneakily, its easier to evade and escape from a contact, its easier to get more profit from just a few kills or loot locations. Still, going in solo is a tactical suicide and it will always be in these kind of games. Just wait until we get more of the squad play and clan mechanics, solo players will only be at a bigger disadvantage. It was always meant to be this way.

1 hour ago, Barangolo said:

I would even go a step further here: either the devs have really poor advertising skills, or they do NOT actually want to steer people towards teamplay, as they are not making use of their only means of selling their game, the website. Nowhere in the listing of how the game should/can be played (31 bulletpoints!) does it tell you to "team up with friends or random players to learn team mechanics and utilize gameplay to its fullest", which should be the most evident way of motivating people to play in teams. This is either a big mistake by underutilizing this page or it was not mentioned on a purpose. The purpose being that if they make it clear from the start that teamplay has huge benefits, it would deter a lot of players from buying the game, who will never play solo or do not intend to. Not being clear about this aspect of the game leaves many players disappointed when expectations do not meet reality and we see this so often in the forum, on Reddit, FB, in stream chats. This I consider to be false advertising, especially if you are aware how much easier it is to play in teams or if you are actually as a dev intending people to play in teams.

BSG never was that good with PR. The actual website hasnt undergone much needed changes. Its the in-game mechanics that steer people towards teamplay. The game is sandbox-y by nature so its not restricting the player that much on what can be done or how it can be played. This is due to change as well, as BSG didnt and/or couldnt predict the amount of casual players and mechanics abusers, quite often the same people. There will probably be restrictions as well, restrictions that drive people to play more as the game was intended to be played.

1 hour ago, Barangolo said:

If the devs meant the game to be played in teams, why is the vast majority playing it solo

2 hours ago, Barangolo said:

Let's just say that if this were the case, the game would be over really quick for lack of sales in a commercial market ;) You are exaggerating of course, but it does show very clearly that you agree with me that teamplay has such benefits in this game that it creates an enormous imbalance (though I would not go as far as to say that it's suicide and I'm sure the devs would never say it as it would be the worst PR ever

This is also answered by the former paragraph. I dont know where you get your numbers from, probably making them up, but anyways, just because we have a huge influx of casual players, doesnt mean that the game should be changed to pander to that audience. An audience that was never the target group for EFT. An audience that would change EFT to be just another run of the mill FPS with casual features, if they were actively listened to. EFT is not a competitive game. Its not meant to be fair for solo players or for squad players. It simulates and will simulate even more in the future, the fact that modern combat and firefights are unpredictable. In a proxy war fought with PMCs, PMCs cut off from their command, its even more unpredictable. Its the setting and lore too in this way.

Nikita has stated that his goal is to change the casual players to HC players, people who understand and enjoy this HC FPS. Making the game to pander to their casual needs is not a way to achieve this goal. "Its the mission to transform casual players to true hardcore players"

2 hours ago, Barangolo said:

All in all, from your statements it is clear that not only do you not understand the way the game is sold, but you also agree with the imbalance and would like to keep it this way, saying that solo players have it worse off but that's their "fault", no matter they have been tricked into believing that this gamecan be enjoyed in solo.

Tricked in to believing what? OFC the game can be enjoyed solo. I enjoy it solo when I dont have my squadmates to play with. Nobody has been tricked in to believing anything, thats just foolish of you to say. You assume that this kind of casual game feature would be required to enjoy solo play which is just not true. If YOU dont enjoy a game that is meant to be unfair and unforgiving, especially for people who play it in an especially unforgiving and hard way, you have tricked yourself in to thinking something.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Barangolo
28 minutes ago, p4nnus said:

Their vision does not include separate modes which essentially lessen the surprise factor of not knowing what and who comes against you.

It is not the "who" but the "how many" and there's quite a difference there. There will always be a larger extent of predictability in a game than what is unpredictable: you know that there are AI around, where they are patrolling, how they behave. You know where to find loot. You know what weapons and armour can be used. You know the buildings and locations as if it's your back yard. All of this knowledge is just game routine that you acquire as you play. The only real unpredictability lies in the other human players, whose behaviour and gear cannot be predicted, this is the surprise factor. The fact that teams add an additional dimension to this does not change the fact that this major unpredictability is there all the time. I would even argue that teams bring more predictability into the game: I find the outcome of a fight with a solo player much less predictable than meeting a team. It also gives a solo player information about the fact that that fewer solo players will now be encountered on the rest of the map. So I do not agree that teams necessary add to the already existing unpredictability factor that the presence of other players represent.

But even if we would never be able to agree on whether it makes it more predictable or not: shouldn't it be a choice for a player to be able to choose a more "predictable" scenario or not? Why should a solo player not be able to choose if he wants to be surprised or not? If I want this type of dimension to unpredictability, I simply click on the "team+solo" server and enter a raid where I can meet squads and be surprised to my heart's content. But if I rather use my skills on 1-on-1 encounters or want to be meeting teams when I team up, I could click on solo only raids. Seriously, in the current setup, what are the odds of meeting a squad when you are in a squad yourself? Pretty slim.. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of teams out there who would like to meet teams and test their skills, not just farm and camp solo noobs all day and call it "hardcore". Do you decline their right to a choice of team servers? Forcing a single aspect (choice of wanting to meet squads in raid or not) to be an unknown factor is something that you should not force down people's throats in my opinion. If having no choice is part of BSG's vision, to assume they know what I like, then I kindly decline that part and try to convince them to represent my interest and that of many others who bought the game for a more balanced gameplay. Of course they can choose to refuse and continue this path, but I think that will mean a premature death of the game, as there are far fewer people in gaming that like to be force-fed than those who want to have choices.

I do not contest your attitude for not wanting a choice for yourself, but why do you contest me trying for my own interest?

57 minutes ago, p4nnus said:

The fact that you know what youre up against, this is against one of the core ideas of EFT and thus not gonna happen. It has been confirmed not to happen. It would make the game way less intense and HC

I think you're making an elefant out of a mosquito :) To state that simply by introducing a choice to solo players whether they want to be meeting teams is diminishing the "hardcore" aspect and saying that if you don't meet teams, the game is a walk in the park and not intense enough, is as if you are not playing this game at all :D I do not know of a single streamer, who are all highly skilled, who is not a nervous wreck when playing EFT, even when high on THC :DAnyone playing this game knows that it is extremely demanding, no matter your experience level, even when you only meet solo players for many raids, even when you are up against some AI, not to speak of raiders or scav bosses. There is no sure outcome, even for the veterans who rock the meta builds after speedleveling in all their spare time in a few weeks. If anything, this game needs much more balance, not even more imbalance. There will always be a pull toward a more demanding game by those at the top who feel it's too easy and a pull to more balance by those at the bottom, but if you are saying that this game is not tough enough, you belong to a very small minority, hardly those that will pay the bills.

1 hour ago, p4nnus said:

BSG doesnt care if theres less players over all, EFT has already surpassed all expectations.

Some things you keep repeating as obvious fallacies, but some things you are plain ignorant about: who pays for servers? Who pays for developing new maps, features, mechanics, fixing bugs, etc.? You have clearly no idea about financials of running a company, or you wouldn't make such naive statements. A game only exists as long as there is a steady cashflow, as there are costs that need to be paid for, irrespective of player base. Do you seriously think that a few hundred thousand players has generated enough one-off income that covers the cost of server rental to accommodate these players for many years to come? Just think logically: even if you ignore the overhead costs of paying Nikita's and all the developers' and staff salaries, equipment, premises, etc., do you think that what you paid for the game will be financing your server space for long? Come on, let's be serious about what you're stating. At least don't assume BSG is that silly of a firm to believe that.

Of course it is a different ballgame if you're serious about not caring about player satisfaction and think that it's ethical to cheat players by portraying EFT for what it is not: it will backfire badly, as the game's reputation is built on streams and word-of-mouth. You cannot build on a lie for long and once it gets a reputation of a buggy game with no rewarding gameplay, the financing dries out and you can wait hours in queue for lack of servers that BSG can pay for. So being malevolent is shortsightedness.

1 hour ago, p4nnus said:

"Its the mission to transform casual players to true hardcore players"

And I fully support that. I much rather have people playing tactically, developing skills and learning maps properly, mechanics, etc., than having Fortnite kids camping spawns, cheesing skills or bunnyhopping around with buddies to reach the loot fastest and disconnecting, bragging rights for who has the biggest stash. But there is a world of difference in HOW to achieve that goal. I believe it is by giving choices, especially because the game is more challenging than anything else we played. If BSG believes it can be achieved by forcing everything down players' throats instead of giving them incentives to play in a certain way, it will never work. Expecting people to love a hardcore game by bringing them up against squads will not make them love it, but will result in avoiding fights and hatchet running, if not rightout deserting the game and shouting it out all over the forums. If it thinks it can cheat people into buying something that looks different than what it really is, than the game is predestined to fail. People will think twice buying a game where they hear upfront that there is no refund. And this is not an assumption, it's a fact: the current cheesing/camping/hatcheting gameplay is nothing more than a proof that forcing gameplay will not result in the expected attitude, but in further avoidance.

Share this post


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

It is not the "who" but the "how many" and there's quite a difference there. There will always be a larger extent of predictability in a game than what is unpredictable: you know that there are AI around, where they are patrolling, how they behave. You know where to find loot. You know what weapons and armour can be used. You know the buildings and locations as if it's your back yard. All of this knowledge is just game routine that you acquire as you play. The only real unpredictability lies in the other human players, whose behaviour and gear cannot be predicted, this is the surprise factor. The fact that teams add an additional dimension to this does not change the fact that this major unpredictability is there all the time. I would even argue that teams bring more predictability into the game: I find the outcome of a fight with a solo player much less predictable than meeting a team. It also gives a solo player information about the fact that that fewer solo players will now be encountered on the rest of the map. So I do not agree that teams necessary add to the already existing unpredictability factor that the presence of other players represent.

But even if we would never be able to agree on whether it makes it more predictable or not: shouldn't it be a choice for a player to be able to choose a more "predictable" scenario or not? Why should a solo player not be able to choose if he wants to be surprised or not? If I want this type of dimension to unpredictability, I simply click on the "team+solo" server and enter a raid where I can meet squads and be surprised to my heart's content. But if I rather use my skills on 1-on-1 encounters or want to be meeting teams when I team up, I could click on solo only raids. Seriously, in the current setup, what are the odds of meeting a squad when you are in a squad yourself? Pretty slim.. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of teams out there who would like to meet teams and test their skills, not just farm and camp solo noobs all day and call it "hardcore". Do you decline their right to a choice of team servers? Forcing a single aspect (choice of wanting to meet squads in raid or not) to be an unknown factor is something that you should not force down people's throats in my opinion. If having no choice is part of BSG's vision, to assume they know what I like, then I kindly decline that part and try to convince them to represent my interest and that of many others who bought the game for a more balanced gameplay. Of course they can choose to refuse and continue this path, but I think that will mean a premature death of the game, as there are far fewer people in gaming that like to be force-fed than those who want to have choices.

I do not contest your attitude for not wanting a choice for yourself, but why do you contest me trying for my own interest?

I think you're making an elefant out of a mosquito :) To state that simply by introducing a choice to solo players whether they want to be meeting teams is diminishing the "hardcore" aspect and saying that if you don't meet teams, the game is a walk in the park and not intense enough, is as if you are not playing this game at all :D I do not know of a single streamer, who are all highly skilled, who is not a nervous wreck when playing EFT, even when high on THC :DAnyone playing this game knows that it is extremely demanding, no matter your experience level, even when you only meet solo players for many raids, even when you are up against some AI, not to speak of raiders or scav bosses. There is no sure outcome, even for the veterans who rock the meta builds after speedleveling in all their spare time in a few weeks. If anything, this game needs much more balance, not even more imbalance. There will always be a pull toward a more demanding game by those at the top who feel it's too easy and a pull to more balance by those at the bottom, but if you are saying that this game is not tough enough, you belong to a very small minority, hardly those that will pay the bills.

Some things you keep repeating as obvious fallacies, but some things you are plain ignorant about: who pays for servers? Who pays for developing new maps, features, mechanics, fixing bugs, etc.? You have clearly no idea about financials of running a company, or you wouldn't make such naive statements. A game only exists as long as there is a steady cashflow, as there are costs that need to be paid for, irrespective of player base. Do you seriously think that a few hundred thousand players has generated enough one-off income that covers the cost of server rental to accommodate these players for many years to come? Just think logically: even if you ignore the overhead costs of paying Nikita's and all the developers' and staff salaries, equipment, premises, etc., do you think that what you paid for the game will be financing your server space for long? Come on, let's be serious about what you're stating. At least don't assume BSG is that silly of a firm to believe that.

Of course it is a different ballgame if you're serious about not caring about player satisfaction and think that it's ethical to cheat players by portraying EFT for what it is not: it will backfire badly, as the game's reputation is built on streams and word-of-mouth. You cannot build on a lie for long and once it gets a reputation of a buggy game with no rewarding gameplay, the financing dries out and you can wait hours in queue for lack of servers that BSG can pay for. So being malevolent is shortsightedness.

And I fully support that. I much rather have people playing tactically, developing skills and learning maps properly, mechanics, etc., than having Fortnite kids camping spawns, cheesing skills or bunnyhopping around with buddies to reach the loot fastest and disconnecting, bragging rights for who has the biggest stash. But there is a world of difference in HOW to achieve that goal. I believe it is by giving choices, especially because the game is more challenging than anything else we played. If BSG believes it can be achieved by forcing everything down players' throats instead of giving them incentives to play in a certain way, it will never work. Expecting people to love a hardcore game by bringing them up against squads will not make them love it, but will result in avoiding fights and hatchet running, if not rightout deserting the game and shouting it out all over the forums. If it thinks it can cheat people into buying something that looks different than what it really is, than the game is predestined to fail. People will think twice buying a game where they hear upfront that there is no refund. And this is not an assumption, it's a fact: the current cheesing/camping/hatcheting gameplay is nothing more than a proof that forcing gameplay will not result in the expected attitude, but in further avoidance.

My criticism to multiple game modes is that when casual players are faced between easy and hard, let's face it, the majority is going to choose easy. Which is essentially having the option of doing solo servers or going solo into squad. You're changing the means of the game as you describe. Bending a fork over and over creates something that can still hold a soup. Also, how does it make sense in the world of Tarkov? Why would there just be a bunch of loaners going into a dangerous area and not with a group? People prefer safety. With safety you're more likely to get more loot and live. More loot means you can enjoy the game without worries of going broke. Also the hatchet running problem is being looked into because scavs are supposed to be the no risk possible high reward. Camping is apart of every single PVP game. Cheesing is apart of every game with loot or levels.

As for no rewards, satisfaction it self is rewarding. Such as Darksouls, hard game, low rewards, very rewarding in terms of satisfaction. 
In terms of Money, dude.... twitch event brought alot of players from the just the way the game plays itself.

For surprising. Game is based on realism, people are unpredictable, and giant maps with alot of cover. You can't make the game predictable with these 3. You're going to get multiple scenarios. You said it your self too, so why bring it up. (squads are still unpredictable yet more predictable)

Also Predestined to fail huh? You don't know the income the company is getting (they are in process of upgrading servers which means they have money), people are liking the game because it's innovative, and since it's innovative, there's kinks they have to work with as a less funded company. So you can't just say it'll fail because that's what you believe. People are trying something NEW

-Can't right rest due to time constricitons

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
p4nnus
3 hours ago, Barangolo said:

But even if we would never be able to agree on whether it makes it more predictable or not: shouldn't it be a choice for a player to be able to choose a more "predictable" scenario or not?

You try to so hardly make up these reasons how knowing what sized squads comes against you makes the game less predictable, its totally ridiculous. You must understand yourself that its hard to take you seriously after that. I already conveyed you the reasons BSG has told for not including the matchmaking system. Loot and AI have nothing to do with it as both are subject to change, even quite much. Randomized loot and more unpredictable humanlike AI have both been confirmed. Futile arguments. Youre kinda proving it yourself, how the most unpredictable thing in the game ATM is the enemy squad size and Ive already told you that its meant to be like that. A more predictable and thus easy version would be a watered down version.

3 hours ago, Barangolo said:

Seriously, in the current setup, what are the odds of meeting a squad when you are in a squad yourself? Pretty slim.. I'm pretty sure there are plenty of teams out there who would like to meet teams and test their skills, not just farm and camp solo noobs all day and call it "hardcore".

Exactly. You dont know the odds, thats the whole point, dont you get it? I can tell you as a slightly more experienced player, that there are squads in almost every raid. The chances are not slim, youre just showcasing your inexperience now with this one.

3 hours ago, Barangolo said:

try to convince them to represent my interest and that of many others who bought the game for a more balanced gameplay.

What Ive been trying to tell you is that its useless. It has been confirmed for years now. Im surprised this thread isnt locked up yet as its a 324902834th duplicate of the same subject. Slightly different terms than most of the duplicates, but still, a rule breaking duplicate suggestion post.

3 hours ago, Barangolo said:

Of course they can choose to refuse and continue this path, but I think that will mean a premature death of the game, as there are far fewer people in gaming that like to be force-fed than those who want to have choices.

3 hours ago, Barangolo said:

Some things you keep repeating as obvious fallacies, but some things you are plain ignorant about: who pays for servers? Who pays for developing new maps, features, mechanics, fixing bugs, etc.? You have clearly no idea about financials of running a company, or you wouldn't make such naive statements. A game only exists as long as there is a steady cashflow, as there are costs that need to be paid for, irrespective of player base. Do you seriously think that a few hundred thousand players has generated enough one-off income that covers the cost of server rental to accommodate these players for many years to come? Just think logically: even if you ignore the overhead costs of paying Nikita's and all the developers' and staff salaries, equipment, premises, etc., do you think that what you paid for the game will be financing your server space for long? Come on, let's be serious about what you're stating. At least don't assume BSG is that silly of a firm to believe that.

Youre telling Im ignorant, but you dont seem to understand what Ive already told you. The game already got way more popular than anyone anticipated. Was that done by catering to the casuals like this feature would? No. EFT has done well because its different. Theres plenty of games where you have even odds. You might think that the game will suffer a premature death, but believe me, youre wrong. It has, and Im repeating myself, surpassed the goals of concurrent players and preorders greatly. They are updating the servers as we speak, so that the crazy amount of new players can all play without problems. Doesnt that tell enough to you? And I mind you: the goal of 30 000 concurrent players was hit way before the twitch event.

Hahahah trying to tell me that Im naive while you dont have any idea how EFT is financed. Did you even know that they had a hefty sum to start with from Contract wars and then got a big investor in? Before the open-beta? Seems like you didnt. EFT is doing way better than anticipated, I can keep reminding you of this, but please dont call me ignorant, its silly of you while you have no idea what youre talking about. Again: the game didnt get popular by catering to casuals who want a fair experience. Thats why theres no need to start doing so now either. 

3 hours ago, Barangolo said:

Of course it is a different ballgame if you're serious about not caring about player satisfaction and think that it's ethical to cheat players by portraying EFT for what it is not: it will backfire badly, as the game's reputation is built on streams and word-of-mouth.

Its funny how you tell Im ignorant and then think you were cheated because you thought EFT was something else than it is. Whos the ignorant one now? You had all the opportunities to find out what its like! Nowhere does it say that the experience is competitive, fair and balanced. Instead they say its HC, unforgiving and intense. They say its a combat simulator. Im repeating myself again; firefights arent fair and if you wouldnt have been so ignorant and you wouldve read about the lore before buying, in this scenario its even less fair and predictable than in the context of national armies battling it out.

Also, you clearly arent of the target audience for EFT, youre just another casual who cant do well enough in EFT and thus you want the game to be changed. Its not gonna happen, no matter how much you whine about it. The important part is that the players EFT is designed for get that satisfaction from it. Just because you dont, doesnt mean that they dont care. They care about the satisfaction of their target audience over casuals like you. Thats rare nowadays and you should respect BSG for it. As Ive already said, theres plenty of run-of-the-mill shooters with fair and square odds, you should go play them and not try to change the game in to something you wrongly thought in your ignorance to be.

3 hours ago, Barangolo said:

camping spawns, cheesing skills or bunnyhopping around with buddies to reach the loot fastest and disconnecting, bragging rights for who has the biggest stash. But there is a world of difference in HOW to achieve that goal. I believe it is by giving choices, especially because the game is more challenging than anything else we played. If BSG believes it can be achieved by forcing everything down players' throats instead of giving them incentives to play in a certain way, it will never work.

Ambushing is here to stay, Ive already explained why and how easily its countered, its a strategy like every other and theres nothing wrong with it. Cheesing is already being countered, only the first iteration of anti-cheesing mechanics have been implemented and now BSG is getting data on how it works. The inertia system in EFT is not implemented properly ATM as it was causing some game breaking bugs. So bunnyhopping is gonna be probably removed when the inertia is implemented properly. Probably even upped a notch. All the other confirmed features would indicate that moving fast will get penalized and harder if you have a lot of gear on. 

Hatchlings are also gonna be dealt with, I told you that as well. AAND I told you that EFT is not and is not meant to be for everyone. How many times do I have to repeat these things to you?

Edited by p4nnus
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShiroTenshi

Hello!

Thanks for putting so much effort into writing a consistent and constructive post.

However, please understand that this is a non issue. It has already been confirmed that there will be no division of solos and groups, optional or not. No separate matchmaking, no separate servers, no separate game modes with the exception of arena.

This isn't an opinion. It is fact as per the DEVs decision and announcement several times already. Regardless of how good your arguments are, this fact remains. It is the DEVs choice and they have made it. At the end of the day they are the only ones with the right to do so.

Simply put, they are not interested in adding such a thing as it does not fit their vision of the game. This has been reiterated time and time again and will not change regardless of how many people ask for it. This is one of the core concepts of EFT that is NOT open to change (DEVs words, not mine). You may agree or disagree with this. That is fine. It's still their decision.

I will leave this post up, for future reference. However whatever time and effort are put into discussing this or similar topics will essentially be wasted since it will not change anything. So it is best to instead focus on matters that really matter and we can actually influence.

I understand you disagree. I understand you may think that if there's enough people asking for it the the DEVs have to follow what they want. We will agree to disagree on that particular piece of opinion.

Kind regards

#locked

  • Like 3
  • Sad 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


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

×
×
  • Create New...
b38e7c858218a416ef714554dce933a2