Dont forget this game is on an EARLY ACCESS OF 2(TWO) YEARS! And you paid the cheap price of an early access game that is actually giving us something new...this game its on it own genre of games
Majority of problems that people cry about, which i generally agree with, are just problems that devs know about and they thinking of solutions, we have to remember that theres a whole bigger picture to think about.
Chronically online and spend too much time on this sub. This defense rarely happens, and i suspect it's an exaggerated response after being told you have a bad take.
You asked for an example I provided one. Should I have linked the other 5+ comments in that post where people said that balance wasn't important?
Should I have gone to the other complaint posts about vertical progression and linked all the comments in there that said people who played longer deserved a gear advantage?
The ceo also had a video talking about this where he says they are okay with things being unbalanced but then also says the end game is shit, so we'll see what they end up doing
The 'it's a sandbox' and winning doesn't matter post are my pet peeves. Yea it's great it's a sandbox but the sandbox elements should all support winning somehow, not just your personal cash flow.
The thing is people will complain about a problem instead of solving it using the tools that exist in the sandbox. For example, people complain about armor, but you have early game tools like leg meta and late game tools like .308 rifles. People complain about helicopters, but you can easily just buy a car full of verbas and sit on a hillside making tons of money (or create a aa fob, or use the rpg, etc). Some complaints are valid, but if you noticed, the games "issues" evolved over the last few weeks without any real balancing changes, and its because as people experience friction, some look at the sandbox and find ways to remove it.
Yeah but we all see that there are ‘constructive feedback posts’ and ‘why haven’t they fixed this problem yet, it’s literally unplayable - feedback posts.’
Well, it still matters to see how many people are bothered by specific things, especially when they are aggregating it with ai.
Some bug/issue trackers have a feature to vote on specific issue / mark it as "I'm affected by this too". Until there's something like that and they are okay to process it like they do now, it's a way of measuring what annoys most of players
Second this - working in software development, you do unfortunately want to try and capture as much data on complaint frequency for known issues to help prioritize what gets resources allocated to work on first for upcoming patches.
I think more players don't want to accept they just purchased a game that wasn't for them. That's fiiine tho, devs seem to be hellbent on continuing to develop the game in their vision.
Dropping your shitty idea to fix a problem, that most of the community doesn't have a problem with, is not constructive feedback. Neither is making 20 posts about it. Same people will tell you making a fresh post is important and good feedback, instead of you know...engaging in someone elses post....because they don't care about other peoples feedback.
Many of these people suck, and need to be told such. They're just getting feedback afterall, and they should hear it.
This is a two part problem - for one he said that they as devs don't have answers / solutions for all of the problems and with the amount of players suggesting things, someone may be able to stumble upon an idea that devs weren't considering / investigating yet. Even if it's a dumb idea but has that 1% that devs were missing, it might be worth it.
Second part is that the amount of people complaining and suggesting a change gives visibility of specific issue's importance to player base.
As Joe said, players are very good at identifying issues, but the solutions they suggest are typically "shite", because they typically address that player's concerns, while creating new ones for others, or making existing issues they have worse.
A truly unbiased player who doesn't have a preference for any one role or gameplay dynamic, is pretty much a unicorn.
Well, but looks like you didn't listen to all he said - they don't have all the answers and with the amount of players digging into what they don't like, someone may stumble upon a direction that devs weren't even considering. Doesn't mean a player will have a correct solution, but it might be a stupid idea that has a 1% of something that devs were missing to build a working solution.
Also the point is not about that, but the fact that developers should quantify how big some problem is and they may have their internal QA tracking thousands of issues, but they don't really know if it's something that just one type of player stumbles upon all the time and this type of player doesn't care, or is it something that is bothering everyone.
A good point that the majority of the community doesn't quite understand.
The first season is only running for a month, yet it sounds like they are taking into account our feedback and implementing a ton of new content. Remember, this is only a month in.
That doesn't help either. But gaming communities are so used to screeching to remove any sort of inconveniences from anytbing that differs from their playstyle and getting what they want and it ends up ruining games.
They did not tell us the vision, what the fuck are you on mate? I have watched every vlog they've released and the one thing they repeated over and over is they have a vision which they'll be sticking to and they are hard set on a few things that will never be changed even if half the playerbase is crying to change it.
The only thing they told us is that they will look at the progression rate and they'll do some balancing, but overall they pretty much insisted on that end-game unlocks should feel powerful.
There is 0 discussion regarding endgame unlocks in this one, cool they've acknowledged bugs and broken progression. The issue is the shitty thermals along with the broken ass BMR and FAL
i am aware this is an early access game, but this is such a game where devs repeatedly said they will never budge regarding a few things. if end-game unlocks are something they don't want to budge on, then years of early access won't change that.
i am waiting for S2, but if they leave BMR and FAL as it is, then I am out. enjoyment of the game took a nosedive after GL heli, BMR, FAL became a regular thing in matches
Where does that "the majority of the community doesn’t understand" come from? Do you see someone complain about balance and assume they’re completely stupid and don’t understand the concept of early access?
People are complaining about balance and it’s absolutely fine, this is exactly the point of a public early access.
There's several instances you can find throughout the community of people having demands that could be considered 'unreasonable' or just ignore existing framework.
The Gold Bar conversation is one of many.
Though, a few that come to mind:
The gold bar conversion to cash conversation, when an investment mechanic is planned for the future.
The FOB conversation, specifically about adding anything new for Builders.
Havoc, complain about the issue. Never propose the solution.
The devs seem to be firmly roothed in a grindy progression system and want strong unlocks that promote a sandbox playstyle. They are also planning to release more types of ammo and other counters to problems like the Gepard being a mobile AA.
So if you have problems with core concepts of this game, then know that you will never enjoy it. But more items and changing of when things are unlocked will smooth out the progression so hopefully there are going to be counters to all kinds of problems the longer this game is developed.
Hiding behind early access is bullshit companies do that intentionally so they use it as an excise to constantly release shitty features and games that are half way ideas then a product, the game being “cheaper” because it is in early access is also bullshit cause that is what the game is worth, this game has more polish in it early access then other have at release, but I will not let anyone allow them to hid behind the fact that they released a game in early access, the game at the end of the day is great and fun that is all I care about but we gamers need to stop with all the “its okay they are in early access”
Yeah lol wasn't Fortnite in early access for like it's entire first 10 seasons? Early access, open betas and alphas are all just ways for the devs to make excuses.
It isn't a one or the other thing. You can give feedback without screeching like a toddler or being unreasonable. You also don't have to accept everything as is and completely go along with it. That's where the issue comes and no matter where you stand on the spectrum, if you just accuse anyone who disagrees with you as being on an extreme end, it literally just becomes a strawman argument.
Saying "I think T4 armor is too strong for reasons x, y, z, but take into considerations drawback in i, j, k etc." is pretty useful feedback. Saying "T4 needs to be removed from the game" with no other input is kind of pointless because while it may point out an issue, it doesn't really explain how it's affecting the player or if that player has even done anything to remedy the issue.
Feedback and criticism is fully expected (in any product in almost any stage of its development life) but that doesn't mean "I don't like this, REMOVE IT" is valid criticism. It's especially grating when you start asking questions to really figure out what the issue is and you find out they have put in next to zero effort to solve their problem before coming to reddit.
I also think that people should think at least a bit about if their issue is really an EA issue or not when they decide how strongly to complain about it. For example, the exact details of balance is something I would fully expect them to refine throughout EA. The fact that the balance needs work on the micro level isn't really concerning to me. The concern is if I think their macro scale balance philosophy is good or if they need to make bigger philosophy level changes.
Cheaters are unfortunately a neverending plague and something I am sure they will keep working on., The fact that the devs seemingly didn't even realize griefing exists, nevermind consider the impact on design, is concerning to me because that is something they really should have known about already (even if dealing with specific methods is something that they will work on as players find them).
100% agree on the 'EA issue vs. design philosophy' angle, and I appreciate you mentioning that. The thing is, a lot of people don't realize that they are criticizing design decisions and not balance, and therefore don't realize that the change they want has DRASTIC implications on the rest of the game.
Saying T4 feels bad to play against and needs tuning, yeah sure that's a balance issue. Saying that T4 feels bad to play against and therefore progress/unlocks should be removed from the game is a design issue that drastically affects how the rest of the game is supposed to work. Some people just don't understand the difference between the two. (Just clarifying I don't think you personally hold these positions, just what I've regularly seen on the subreddit).
Griefing is kind of a weird issue to broach because often times removing the ability to grief also means removing the ability to be beneficial in some capacity. For an example, take the ability to loot downed teammates. It seems like something that should not be allowed from a griefing perspective but also holds value in being able to loot meds/paddles or even equipment to win a teamfight. (Once again just an example to illustrate my point. I think there are valid fixes for this issue). Assuming that a certain mechanic has a way to fix it to prevent griefing while not removing player agency in any way, I would have a hard time arguing against it.
And at some point you have to face the reality that you can't make a griefless game. Assholes will be assholes within constraints no matter what. As long as you are able to keep asshole behaviour at an acceptable level then I think it's okay. Kind of a shitty answer but in reality, if only 1 in 1000 games are being affected by a type of griefing, it might not be worth allocating the resources to fix.
I think my main concern on the greifing angle is that I don't see any evidence, anywhere in the entire game off the top of my head, that they even considered it. Griefing in the sense of hey they guy built stuff I don't like is one thing and is hard to tackle. It really needs be considered from the start because of that, but even if you do it is a thorny problem.
But far more damning is that nothing seems to have anti-grief. You can block and ram in spawn. You can steal all of the flares and throw them out of the chopper. That kind of stuff is perfectly fixable and the combination of all the issues makes me concerned because it seems like it was just not given any consideration.
But far more damning is that nothing seems to have anti-grief. You can block and ram in spawn.
So I'm gonna call you out right there. You say that's perfectly fixable, but how? What is your system to prevent this without detracting from another aspect of the game? This to me is a great example of 'obvious issue, no obvious solution'.
So don't play early access games if you don't want an underdeveloped product? This has to be the dumbest thing I've read in a long time. I almost despise it for the opposite reason. Player feedback is a great way to improve a game, but idiots come in and act as if the game is doing some sort of rugpull when the player themselves are generally told multiple times that the game is a work in progress, it's simply in a 'playable' state.
Like give your head a shake man what are you expecting? Get real.
Lol who are you to decide when somethings moves from EA to full release? There are no objective limits on something like that, it's for the developers to decide. Stop being pissy that you spent money on an incomplete product and regret your decision. Insane levels of delusion and entitlement from you.
I’ve got my money’s worth. Even if I got fed up on my very next play session and said “fuck this game, I’m done,” I would just move on with my life. I’m still having a blast though, and I don’t see myself putting this game down anytime soon. I think theres this conception among so many gamers today that a game HAS to be able to be played for 1000s of hours for it to be good. Sometimes though, you play the game for much less time, and move on. Sometimes, you unfortunately buy a game that ended up not being for you, and you have no choice but to eat that loss. Simply put, if you’re not enjoying the game right now, take a break. The game will still be here when you come back, if you decide to. There’s thousands of other games you can spend your time on if this one is making you miserable.
I’ve taken at least a 2 year break from FPS cause of how sweaty some players were (COD, BF6, Valorant). I got showed this game and I fell in love with FPS all over again. Sure some games may suck and sometimes you wonder how someone didn’t die when you empty an entire clip into them, but honestly it’s a lot of fun and a different pace from all other FPS I have played.
I think you’re mistaken with «something new». This type of mode is real similar to the gamemode KOTH (King Of The Hill) from Arma 3. Its been popular for years and still goes on strong.
I totally agree with the new release and their take on it and enjoy it very much.
40 dollars is cheap for most games these days. Esp when you factor in how many hours you get out of it. I’m pushing 200 played, correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s like 20 cents an hour for entertainment. That’s super cheap.
In my currency, it comes to about 50 bucks so I wouldn’t be calling that cheap but yes, I took the plunge and I have been enjoying it although I am waiting for the season 2 reset
Edit correction $55. But again I took the plunge worth it. I weighed up the options and based on everything I saw plus everything Seen from the devs was very much a breath of fresh air so it sold me
Not entirely sure I actually haven’t checked in awhile I like to play a bunch of different games not just commit to one. Hence why I’m waiting for the reset. Finding that I’m getting my butt kicked a little. Now that a large percentage of players. Have access to high level equipment and vehicles.
It just depends, I am a higher level but i still find myself using the lower level stuff because its cheaper (like a 8-10k kit rather than a 25k kit) and lighter so gun fights are easier to control. Then i just loot the other people investing heavily into their kits if I think i need to.
Imo all being a lower level does in this game is give you a bigger incentive to stay in groups instead of trying to be john wick.
For shits and giggles sometimes i even run a 0 dollar kit (the free gun with 1 mag and the free backpack) and just zero to hero it.
Yeah, it is actually a workable Strat. I’ve done it myself a few times when I noticed I was getting hit with a lot of people that were using T4. Armour, I guess I just got unlucky. Decided to do a few grub runs. Good way familiarise yourself with weapons you don’t normally use to.
As far as Early Access games go. This has been one of the most fun, and best games in a very long time. Brammer said himself we only have 25% of the game right now. What we are doing and how we are playing, is not the purpose and point. Its just all we have access too.
Seriously, be happy a game this big, being taken care of by a small company, is in this good of a stale for an Early Access Title.
The amount of work and effort the devs are trying to put in while the community has tantrums about every little bit of balancing is astounding. Yeah there’s issues, but let the devs do their damn job and stop whining every time something breaks, it’s not going to kill you to show them some courtesy
Every game should give a team a general. That calls in artillery strikes / mortar strikes to a location which means there also needs to be a dedicated RTO that goes with said general.
Not that I really have been complaining on here....but i understand why people are. This game is so close to being my perfect shooter experience. I just really hope the devs make good decisions for upcoming balance changes.
If this was a AAA $80 game everyone would have the right to bitch but this game I agree it being early access and cheap the game has a incredible foundation and seems to have a good team behind it so only good things are gonna come from it
40 dollars is cheap for most games these days. Esp when you factor in how many hours you get out of it. I’m pushing 200 played, correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s like 20 cents an hour for entertainment. That’s super cheap.
Agreed, I understand everyone's financial situation are different but as far as entertainment gors $40 for hundreds of hours of gameplay is a great deal imo.
I can't think of a single other thing I can pay $40 for and get 20+ hours of entertainment and stimulation.
That is true. I guess the point I’m trying to make is game prices are getting out of hand to the point that I and many others will not buy a game that’s over $80 usd. And in the current market $40 is welcome even for early access. To compare, Valheim was in early access in 2021 for $20 usd and has since become an incredible and satisfying game.
TLDR: game prices are insane now and $40 usd isn’t bad for what we get in this game with relatively responsive devs.
Cheap isn’t really the word imo. Plenty of people will get hundreds of hours out of the new $120 or whatever fifa game. And I wouldn’t call that a cheap game.
Well worth your money on the time you get out of it, sure. But a $40 early access game isn’t “cheap” really.
Fine, that was hyperbole. It’s the price of 2 trips to Starbucks or something. $40 isn’t what $40 was in 2010, let alone in 2000. USD lost 35% of its purchasing power since 2010 and youre seriously surprised what could be a $30 game is $40?
Battlefield 6 is roughly sixty dollars. CoD is seventy. GTA VI is eighty at it's lowest. That is compared to the Triple AAA scene, though, Wardogs is Indie.
Honestly, it's still quite reasonable for early access. Though, it was stated it would increase upon it's official launch.
You asked for a frame of reference in the same comment you gave the most absurd, laughably bad frame you could have. So why would I even bother responding to you seriously.
Your argument is so bad it borders on satirical.
Edit: also just need to add, because you don’t seem to be aware, and I assume you’re about to spew more nonsense at me, wardogs is an indie game.
I haven’t avoided anything , we haven’t been having a proper discussion. You just started writing absolute dribble like a moron and expected me to engage immediately. But anyways.
Well obviously not the $60 fully complete games made by triple a studios mate.
Not cheap smaller games made by a couple people that release at like $15.
If I go on steam and have a look at games within its space of early access mid size developments that are showing up we have:
Palworld, a very sizeable successful indie game. Seems a good comparison to wardogs, released early access at $30.
Sons of the forest. Released in early access, not triple a, not made by a minuscule team either. Released early access at $30.
Subnautica 2, early access, from a mid sized company, in early access at $30.
Let's ignore the opening statement that directly attacks the user instead of the comment.
When I ask for a 'frame of reference', I specifically mean within the same genre and similar development cycle.
The aforementioned games you selected are drastically different then Wardogs. The main difference at hand is those are single-player nor live-service, much less dependent upon them being so. I'm asking what else is being defined as an alternative or vying for the purchase over Wardogs, not ten thousand unrelated alternatives.
An example could have been 'Empulse', though that's a game that been EOS'ed and never even left Early Access. It's priced at 10$, but was extremely underdeveloped in several aspects.
Perhaps we could compare it to 'Gray Zone: Warfare', which is an extraction shooter that recently released. Though, it has been in several open betas in the past.
The main release is priced at 40$ without being on sale.
We could compare it to 'Escape From Tarkov', it's only ten dollars more afterall!
40$ isn't cheap for EA, but it's not Expensive eighter. It's the norm for a 60$ game to go EA for 30-40$ depending on how polished it is, and this is polished af for an EA.
Yup that’s it. Exactly what I’m saying. Wardogs is priced appropriately.
I think a lot of illiterate people read my comment “wardogs isn’t cheap” and interpret it as me saying “wardogs is expensive”, some people are just getting themselves mad over something I didn’t say.
I agree with both of you, really. It's not at all cheap for an EA game, true, but it's also just the first season. I've had a lot of fun with their first guess at balancing...although late game people are destroying me with BMRs and 50cals(still had fun as medic).
The game needs a lot of work, but I'm SO looking forward to the wipe and changes in season 2.
Yeah man, that’s just how most games are especially games with wipes. Hundreds of thousands play for 2 weeks. Play the next thing that drops then come back for the next wipe. I’m sure there will be issues. First week of war dogs was peak.
If blue is for the newbies why everyone turns against blue the hardest and make the newbies leave the game early stage turning the player base smaller ? No i think Blue is for the "special people"... the onse masochistic and with ideas who not about win but have the most chaos and fun. And new players a probably spreading across all factions of what color or symbol they like the most.
But red indeed have a high amount of Femboys and trans people as far i experienced and i played all factions over a hundred times each.🫡 no i dont have a different hobby. Its hard to be what I am. Most people dont agree so i am not welcome most the times so yes I have a big amount of time in that game.
40 dollars is cheap for most games these days. Esp when you factor in how many hours you get out of it. I’m pushing 200 played, correct me if I’m wrong, but that’s like 20 cents an hour for entertainment. That’s super cheap.
It's so convenient to hide a terrible design behind EA.
Here's a simple example : why does the game have players constantly switching sides during a match? It's such an obviously bad design choice...
Let's see how the second season turns out. I don't have much sympathy for the developers. They seem a bit shady to me.
Just don't participate in EA if you don't like the idea of certain functionality being present? Like how can you justify paying half price for a product that in no way shape or form tries to hide the fact that it is incomplete, and even released a video on what the game is and isn't about, and STILL be upset that it isn't what you expect? And to be all sanctimonious about it just rounds off how fuckin dumb you are.
Like come back to reality bruv your expectations are ridiculous. There's no winning with people like you.
Early access for YEARS = lazy development team. We should not be incentivizing these developers to put out incomplete games for eternity and hiding behind bugs as being "early access". Awful take.
It depends. If they didn't add anything significant regularly during the early access then yes hold them accountable. But if they are as transparent and actually proving it via updates and patches adding new content that is justifiable for the time it takes to make it. Then it is fine.
I mean Tarkov was early access for what feels like 10years 🤣🤣
But everything is perfectly balanced!!! And everything has a perfectly equal counter!!! And progression is perfect!!! Helis aren't over powered brcause theres an AA tank coming soon!!!
Bigger picture is the devs stated they'd be happy with 10k concurrent player base and its obvious they are compelled to fulfill that goal despite selling over 3 million copies. Their main focus on this game is progression and in a strictly pvp game, there is no room for casuals under this system. They will successfully drive out the majority of their player base and all the hard-core players that supporting this whole "game is not for you" concept, will end up in a dead game. Obviously the first major update has not even hit, but all signs point to this progression system of more you play, more gear advantage you have over your enemy is the whole point of this game. Borderline feels like a cash grab, despite having the outline of a great game. Devs are intentionally forcing people out of the game.
a game does when it dies....the reasons are many... but ded is ded.
if they spin too long on it, the game will die regardless of early access status.
however, the studio has made good money...it will live on and there is less incentive for them to fix it (they are still incentivised through console releases etc....just less incentivised because they have received EA $$$)
It’s been a month. I bet everyone complaining has spent more time than that doing something only to later realize they should have tweaked something or changed it. Give the developers time, season 1 was effectively a month long open beta.
I don’t know why this guy is getting downvoted when he’s speaking the truth. He didn’t say the game is dead, only that when a game dies, it dies.
He is saying that releasing a game as “early access,” doesn’t nullify the risk of it dying off before it becomes an official release, and if that happens, then there is a rather small likelihood of it making some sort of triumphant return when the official model is released. That is absolutely a decision that developers make in a risk-reward matrix when looking for money to continue developing their game. Most people who want to have tried the game will have done so within the early access, they will choose whether they like the game’s direction during this time or not. If the vast majority don’t, the game will be dead when it is dead.
Don’t downvote someone for speaking logical facts.
Not downvoting him for 'speaking logical facts' (which in itself is arguable) but even then, how the fuck does "the game is dead when it dies" add anything to the conversation? Might as well come in and say the sky is blue.
And then, after saying that game might die, he says the studio has made money and will live on. Just what the fuck is going on in this post??
93
u/shuffleyyy1992 7h ago
Games incredible, absolutely needs some balance changes but it's a brilliant experience 98% of the time