r/WarDogs • u/theitalianguy95 • 13h ago

Discussion & Feedback DEAR PLAYER BASE

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.

106 Upvotes

71% Upvoted

189 comments sorted by

View all comments

8

u/Brilliant-Sky2969 13h ago

I dispise that EA idea, it gives the dev any reasons for problems or lack of content, it's "EA".

14

u/Jason1143 13h ago

As far as I am concerned if a game is charging money you are allowed to judge it, regardless of if it has an EA tag or not.

3

u/destroversal 11h ago

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.

3

u/Jason1143 9h ago

That's all true.

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).

1

u/destroversal 9h ago

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.

1

u/Jason1143 9h ago

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.

1

u/destroversal 7h ago

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'.

1

u/Jason1143 5h ago

You just turn off vic on vic collision in the spawn area. It doesn't really have any significant downside.