Jump to content

RLpacifist

REGISTERED
  • Content count

    138
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

RLpacifist last won the day on December 23 2016

RLpacifist had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

72 Outstanding Community Member

About RLpacifist

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 12/18/1984

Converted

  • LOCATION
    Germany

Recent Profile Visitors

340 profile views
  1. Rifle Balance

    I'm not sure what exactly is supposed to be 'impossible' here and who said SMGs will kill with 3-4 shots and where you got the RPMs from in order to make such an equation. Not intending to pick on you particularly here, but it seems some people have that one game on their minds where things are done this or that way and they happen to be incapable of allowing themselves to look into other directions. There's a ton of different shooters out there, with a whole lot of varying approaches to weapon balance and even more possible ways around and in between. Yes, yes I know, Battalion is based on COD2/4 gameplay, so why even bother bringing up any other shooter, but still, people may have different backgrounds. Just keep that in mind. Anyway, I used the term 'generally spoken' because I didn't really mean to get into the discussion without ever playing the game and therefore simply shared what appears to be more established from the selection of games which I've been playing. To be honest, 'one hit kill to the torso' doesn't sound too appealing to me, but weapon balance is too complex of a field than this would be a maker or breaker all by its own. As of now, all I can possibly say is, yeah that could work out. Depends. I might come back to the discussion once Beta is running and I can tell first hand.
  2. Joe Brammer @ DDL

    Just loving it.
  3. Rifle Balance

    Generally spoken, body+chest 2 hits and head+neck 1 hit sounds more familiar to me. Agreed, that's why I think that spot shouldn't be any larger than the neck area.
  4. What kind of mods would you like to see in Battalion 1944?

    In case you haven't come across PUBG yet.
  5. Days of War ?

    Actually, I'm not particularly concerned about DoW because I haven't put any money on that horse. However, them hitting such a low and seeing virtually nobody is playing the game anymore - only a couple of months after early access launch! - got me curious as to what is going on over there. So I took some time and had another look at their website, forums and the Kickstarter campaign(s) and tried to figure out myself... First off, I still don't quite understand what or who Driven Arts is in reality. It looks a lot like there isn't a real company behind that name, but rather a few guys - might be at least a core team of three heads given the number of people introduced during their campaign video - teaming up at one's garage and developing the game in their spare time around some regular day job. Nothing wrong with that of course, but that would explain the overall lack of business sense surrounding the project and kind of putting things into perspective about what one 'realistically' could expect from such an endeavor. One rather weird thing I happened to discover in the 'press' section of their website is a link being displayed as www.playdaysofwar.com, which underlying URL appears to connect you to a Twitter account of some Steve Gomez, who seems to have no relation to DoW or Driven Arts considering the complete lack of references on his page to anything related to the game. The Twitter page tells he's a Java Script coder, so maybe he's actually the guy who has scripted the page and someone forgot to change the underlying URL of that reference when changing the link-text. Or Mr. Gomez just highjacked the page and left this as a note. I don't know, but quite telling either way... Secondly, even after reviewing the campaign video a few times now I still don't quite get the idea of their vision for the game. In fact, the whole storyline behind that flick seems to be nothing more than a desperate attempt separating from BAT44's KS campaign and to make Bulkhead look bad somehow. It's kind of funny how the sole purpose of that COD scene - which cuts so awfully into the rest of the video, like a literal afterthought addition - seems to be trying to remind people of how crappy COD has become these days in hopes people might conclude any game taking COD as a role model will necessarily also become such a mess. Well, maybe that is a little far-fetched... However, they really provide us with a deep look inside their heads by explicitly pointing out how their game was oh so close to being finalized after two years of development already spent (I simply can't believe that being a fully accurate fact actually given the current state of the game) in contrary to some other 'idea that may or may not be here in two years' from then. Now, at this point, I think it's quite obvious what they had on their minds there. Get out earlier than BAT44 and pull people over simply by delivering first. Mind you, they probably weren't even aware of COD going back to WWII at that time, not to speak of the general comeback of WWII shooters in 2017. Summing it up so far, their primary goal was to get the game out of the door as fast as possible and they even put it exactly like that themselves in the video. Unfortunately, that seems to be the entire plan - let's not say vision at this point. At least, I can't find anything more than them seemingly hoping for being the first bringing back WWII back to FPS with some sort of cheap mash-up of the best features of old school shooters. Nope.. that's not how game design works mates. With that in mind, it seems quite conclusive that instead of providing a more profound explanation of what their - proclaimed to be almost finished - game is, they decided to ask the community taking part in shaping the game. Frankly, that doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me at all and sounds rather contradictory, doesn't it? I mean, if the game is all about being finished, read the core gameplay is settled and mostly fixed, how is it going to work out now to start and try to incorporate a whole lot of new/different ideas... Which finally brings us to the present day. The latest updates kind of underline how the game indeed hasn't been anywhere near finished at any time so far. Quote from the 'July Dev Update' (12-07-2017): Welp, erm... pardon? This most obviously doesn't add up with the central message their KS video was throwing at us and they seemingly have decided not to even keep the tiniest back door open to fall back on that myth anymore. Wow. What an astonishing move altogether. OK, putting things into a more positive light, one might say they have learned their lessons, cut their losses, starting out on a second try with their eyes steadily put on their vision - this time indeed having one, or at least having that one of Valve, when they still made games back in the day - no matter what. Yeah, maybe and why not. Past is past and today is today and isn't' everybody bound to make mistakes, right? If luck is on their side, who knows, maybe there will be enough folks giving the game another shot, dragging it back up into life out of the 0-players grave. In fact, I do believe Driven Arts is on the right track by coming back to where they (should have) started and finally try to identify their niche and start to think about how they can make a difference from the vast range of alike shooters out there. Are they going to screw over some of their 2k backers by that? I'm afraid yes, they will and most likely already have. Are they going to get another batch of players into the game from finally showing profile? I kind of doubt that, but let them prove me wrong... Finally, no this is not a matter of devs not listening to their community. How even could it be, with such a limited community? Again, there's less than 2k backers and you can consider yourself happy when there's more than 5% of the total of your base audience ever going to show up on your forums. Realize, these guys started out on a damn thin marketing plot of scamming the thirsty WWII FPS enthusiasts, unaware they are far from being the only one on the market targeting that niche. They didn't see it coming and they obviously lack a real vision of what they want to create. Look, they have been on the cheap road, half a rip-off of Day of Defeat, half a mash-up of any other WWII shooter. They said this themselves to some degree on the 'Status Update' (13-06-2017). Now, with their sad attempts reasoning the removal of ADS they even try to jump onto the CS:GO train and run along with that. Their logic, it works for them all right so it got to be an approved concept. Well, you guys over at Driven Arts. If you haven't realized yourself yet, firgging CS:GO is a whole lot more than 'not having ADS'. Got to dig a little deeper there I guess... Anyway, haven't you been talking about your vision? On a side note. There seem to be quite a lot of people wetting their pants when looking at such incredible renderings and losing all reasonability. Yep, might look awesome, but that doesn't require any advanced skills on the game developers end. That's basically an Unreal 4 engine show off. Read, anyone can pull off such renderings because all the fancy stuff is done by the engine no matter what low-quality meshes and textures you might feed into. The engine is doing the job and such 'game images' tell nothing about the overall quality you can expect. Quite cheap, maybe even closer to a misleading advertisement than anything else. Anyhow, don't let anyone fool you with some shiny graphics! --- edit --- It's been no more than 45 minutes after posting this and the Gomez-Link got fixed. Maybe coincidence only, though.
  6. How is the sound/nades in this game?

    @HypeRNT, I kind of saw you suggesting those countermeasures before and that's why I put 'practical' in front. Actually, neither idling in spawn, nor sticking that crosshair steeply up into the sky do qualify for a practical countermeasure in my book for obvious reasons. Maybe I'm judging things from too much of a CS:GO perspective here, though. Wonder if you ever have played that game competitively. I just keep picturing how it would work out on Mirage if one could throw frags from CT across the wall into the pathway leading to the ramp at A. However, you're correct. I have zero experience with the competitive side of COD, nor have I played much of the franchise at all. Only a couple of hours of COD2 and probably a few more of COD4. The sad thing is, even only that little time was more than enough to make me regard those long distance grenades a major annoyance. Especially COD2 became a frustrating sensation the instance I realized those things can be thrown from spawn to spawn. I simply don't think it's a good feature as much as I don't consider them silly killstreaks to be one of the shiniest moments in FPS innovation. You see, I really don't like it. Not even the tiniest bit and I'm afraid this won't change anytime soon, regardless your appreciated efforts convincing me of the usability of that feature in a competitive environment. I do believe you it did work out for you guys. It certainly won't for me. Wrapping things up, I'd just like to add that last sentence. The great majority of games I've been playing do pretty damn well with reasonable ranges for frags and I can only keep my fingers crossed and hope for Battalion rather following such an approach than opting for the COD style.
  7. How is the sound/nades in this game?

    If you have read through this other thread you may already know that with the kind help of vozER I've come to the conclusion that the possibility to cook grenades isn't an applicable feature for this game. Therefore, no I don't try to turn this discussion into something you told us up front you don't want it to be. I'm trying to respect that as good as I can, believe it or not. Actually, there are other folks having this debate in here. One is the guy I was quoting and another one of them is you because you keep holding up the argument how one technique may require more skill then the other. I didn't bring that to the table in the first place. In fact, have a look at my first reply and you'll see that from the beginning the point I'm trying to make is how the lack of practical countermeasures is a commonly agreed on KO-criteria when discussing cooked nades, while at the same time it doesn't seem to apply at all to long distance frags. I probably should have made this more obvious, to begin with. Anyhow, this is what really leaves me baffling and I honestly trouble to see the difference. Both lack a practical countermeasure, regardless how easy or hard it may be to perform on the sending end. It remains the same cheap kill viewed from the receiving end, doesn't it? On a side not though. What you call 'timing' actually is a guessing job because in your scenario you can not possibly know for sure whether there will be an enemy at the spot you are tossing the nade onto. Someone could be there if he had chosen to take that particular route and moved at a pace that you only expect one to go. Therefore, you're dealing with quite a bunch of unknown variables, which effectively turns it into a gamble. And where's the skill in pulling a slot machine? It's like pre-firing every corner all the time in hopes someone might come around. Statistically, you might even get a hit in 2 out of 3, but again, where is the skill in that? However, I could even ignore all that and go by your reasoning, but that doesn't change my question is how some more skill involved suddenly heals the lack of a practical countermeasure.
  8. How is the sound/nades in this game?

    Nope. I just tried to interpret the wide range of implications inherent to that general remark of yours. True. Though the sniper usually will have to see his opponent at least. In addition there exists at least one practical countermeasure, namely smoke grenades. CS:GO has well-implemented incendiaries, in my opinion. Setting the bombsight on fire in order to hold back the bomb plant, or leaving a lake of flames by the attackers after a successful plant is a common tactic really. It's a defensive weapon purposely used to defend objects and here again, smoke grenades serve as countermeasure since they work like an extinguisher. Nice system, to me anyway. I wouldn't call it 'tiny range' when one isn't capable of tossing grenades single-handed over full sized three stories buildings. Maybe just a matter of terms and definitions here. However, nobody is going to 'simply walk away' if there won't be grenade indicators put on the HUD. When only being able to locate a grenade by either actually seeing its world model or hearing its bouncing sounds and having a short timer of 3 - 4 sec maximum the mid range limitations work out perfectly fine. I sense what I have in mind is quite a different design than what COD4 has to offer. This being said, we both won't come to an agreement on this one I'm afraid, but we don't have to anyway. To you, long distance frags are a key feature. To me, they happen to be nothing but an avoidable joy-killer. At this point, I'd say let's wait and see what they come up with and have another talk once we had the chance to put our hands on the game. --- edit --- Like, the act of throwing a nade very high and far means I could airburst it atop the heads and the person couldn't escape, right?
  9. How is the sound/nades in this game?

    Welp, I don't have to feel being addressed here I guess. Anyhow, quite interesting you seem to consider less competitively motivated people are necessarily simple minded. You might want to rethink that one though. However, people expanding the use of the tools given to them beyond their initial purpose is where things start getting interesting of course. I did not question that at all, but really only meant to open another option in regards to diversity and utilizing another sort of grenades for defensive strategies, while notionally limiting frag grenades to reasonable throwing ranges as this obviously is my personal preference. Mind you, sometimes stuff is being diverted from its intended use only because of lack of proper equipment. The point is, frags on COD4 only work as such a defensive weapon you describe them because they can be thrown such far distances without engaging the enemy directly, right? OK, now consider I simply can`t picture me enjoying a COD2/4 alike howitzer-nades-spam-fest in Battalion, regardless being on the delivering or the receiving end actually, therefore generally disapproving the overall concept. Finally, realize that I - despite my disliking - happened to not simply put it all down, but in fact managed to come up with some alternative feature which does provide us with the same defensive potential and also adds to the diversity. Some call it compromise. So, what about taking up on that and discuss about whether or not incendiary grenades might be a thing. Shall we?
  10. How is the sound/nades in this game?

    Actually, thinking about it a little more the whole idea of frags being used as anti-rush doesn't add up too well, as I consider it to be a rather offensive weapon. Throw, boom, rush in... This makes me wonder whether incendiaries/Molotovs will be implemented. Those appear to be the better fit for that defensive role and do add diversity and another layer to grenade-play.
  11. How is the sound/nades in this game?

    I agree, advanced audio mechanics are key in such a game and certainly more important than visuals. I do hope directional sound (HRTF?) is somewhere top on their priority list! However, I'm not too fond of such a high throwing range for frags. As you just said yourself "anyone can throw a nade over a roof", the mechanic is prone to headless spamming. Secondly, even with the highest skill involved lobbing a nade from afar onto somewhere you can't hear or even see into remains a mere gamble nonetheless. In my opinion, it's as much a cheap tactic as cooked nades are regarded to be, since the receiving end also has only little chances effectively dodging those explosives raining from beyond, nicely cooking all the way of their longsome travel. I honestly trouble to see a big difference here. I would rather like to have reasonable throwing ranges for frags in general. Though, I probably won't be that picky in case the total amount of explosives available per full match is limited anyway - keyword: card system - so anti-rush-nade-spam won't happen to become the standard procedure on every single round.
  12. Call Of Duty (2017)

    I would agree, it doesn't look that bad in general, but I sense those infamous dumb down features are still in place. So, why even bother... I mean, it's perfectly fine designing gameplay in a way to satisfy casual needs primarily, but COD has reached a level even I don't feel being addressed anymore. God knows I'm not much of a competitive guy really, but just considering the sheer amount of silly rewards/medals that keep popping right into your face for seemingly any single action performed is enough of a hint that nothing has changed in that department. Most certainly, the game will again sell like hot cakes with ice cream topping and I believe a lot of players will wholeheartedly enjoy the game for what it is. However, I have never been much into the franchise actually and this iteration doesn't look anything like changing that.
  13. Ranked Pre Reqs

    I'm afraid I'm missing something here, but there's actually going to be ranked matchmaking, like known from CS:GO. That is, you will be matched with players around your skill level. The higher up the ELO-ranks, the lesser 'unfortunate' players are likely to be met. Because there's no rank up, where there is no skillful play and you won't earn them ELO-points by only fooling around and being that guy every game. Sure, there's always a chance someone will be in for nothing but douchebaggery or one messing things up to some degree even despite best intentions. However, the idea of high ranks approving other lower ranks - or anything along this lines - for competitive play bears a whole lot more potential things going real bad than it could resolve, in my opinion. In fact, I believe it is a terrible idea. Thing is, naturally people are more tempted penalizing for slightly bad behavior than they are going to leave thumb-ups for some regular everyday player who happens to do about just alright. How is one expected to build up positive reputation? How to avoid politics, drama, elitism and all those side shows dragging people away from actually playing the game? I'd say, by such a system you are going to close a lot of doors, which are actually supposed to be opened by a system like ranked matchmaking. That's probably the very core of the whole issue here. Either be open and deal with some not-so-nice people or put a door into the way and leave a lot of nice people in front of it. You probably can't have it all at the same time. The accessibility of a game may not be underrated, no matter how much - or maybe especially when - the focus is led on competitive play. Though I agree, there might me practicable measures to keep out the jerks more efficiently, which haven't been implemented in games so far and it definitely is worth brainstorming a little more about this. I actually like the idea of putting those players you do not like to ever play with again on a personal blacklist. Like utilizing some context menu on the name directly from the scoreboard. Sure, this would require providing a reason and some sort of automated validation as to whether the entry is justified. Tricky stuff I guess. This blacklist will then be taken into account when matchmaking does its business and will keep those blacklisted folks out of your matches. It kind of works like a negative reputation system. Players piling up more and more entries on personal blacklists eventually run out of matches they are allowed to join and have to rethink their behavior. Actually, the system should put some warning signs into the way before it is too late, like telling on every match search how much games could not be joined because of blacklist entries.
  14. Beta

    How come?
  15. SKINS IN THE GAME

    The situation coming to mind first is whenever you are picking up dropped weapons from the ground in CS:GO: Splash! Suddenly, without a warning, all the colors of the world are exploding right on your HUD! Leaving you paralyzed by that thingy lying in your hands, staring right into your eyes. Yeah, it kind of looks like an AK, but a horde of kids must have vomited all over the thing. After eating three packs of crayons sticks, each. Poor kidos and poor me having to deal with this god awful mess now... But seriously. You got to accept that people are different and when it comes to personal taste, sense of beauty and style, well... There's no accounting for taste, right? I guess it's hardwired into our brains what we find appealing and what puts us off and what may not touch us at all. There are people who never experience the slightest glimpse of disturbance by most outstanding, or even completely out of place designs and arrangements. Yet, there are people whose brains seem to work the exact opposite way and even only minor changes to the base style of things happen to throw them off, giving them a hard time enjoying that thing. In my case, this is not only limited to games and particularly skins. It's the same with music, movies, clothing, furniture and anything else really. I once put stickers on one of my guitars - the cheap one I rarely ever play anyway - because I thought it was rather cool looking. However, it took like no more than a few days until I couldn't stand it anymore and found myself peeling them off neatly, restoring the vanilla look of the guitar. Phew! Ever watched that Monk TV-series? Well, I'm not that weird, but you get the idea. Actually, of course, it is hard to truly understand how someone else is experiencing a situation, especially if it seems to be so much differently from oneself, but again, we all got to accept that people are different and we all should refrain from valuing one against the other. It's just diversity. _________ Side note: With that in mind and looking at the dispute between seekax and me further up the thread, I'd like to try and put a final resume to that particular discussion. Of course, people with an e-sports background and years of experience will naturally read 'e-sports' where it was written 'competitive'. It's basically two different words for the same thing for them. Unfortunately, I couldn't get myself to realize that simple thing in that very evening. Maybe because I was kind of emotionally triggered by the overall tone, I don't know. However, after cooling down and having a second thought on it, sure it makes perfect sense. On the contrary, when I read 'competitive' and 'skill based' in the Kickstarter campaign I understood they want to separate themselves from the mainstream titles, which are heavily focused on casual audience and those wanna-be FPS games, which come with all that roleplay/character building/perks/gimmicks and whatnot stuff, which only serves to distract from the actual gameplay. I guess my background at that time was being all fed up with BF4's chaotic and random gameplay and that seemingly there are only Pay-To-Play-Bullshit alternatives on the market. By the end of the day, I'm happy where development is heading. My favorite FPS of all times is still Assault Cube and now seeing how Battalion 1944 is probably going to be a lot closer to that game than I would have expected a year ago makes me fairly excited.
×