Patch

(ailmanki) #121

Those short ET/RTCW maps,… I can’t bear this bull**** talk anymore. ET_ICE does have a forward spawn you fight first for, and then you go for the main objective. There are even sub-objectives on the way there, 2 walls to be blown. In ET there is even a command post to be built for each team.

And what is so glorious about it? You don’t need to complete any of these side objectives, you only need to grab the documents and deliver them.
Frostbite? About the same!
Every damn map. MP_Sub is about the fastest map to play there is, and even that, forward spawn, walls to blow, -> main objective blow sub.

Guess what? The maps which are played in competition, for ET and RTCW are all well balanced. They all have more or less same concept. Must be hard to copy such perfect examples…
:mad:

(BomBaKlaK) #122

Poor maps make a poor game ! that’s all
Look at the player retention ! never see such a game deserted so quick, ho sorry BRINK do better …

But who care nobody is playing this game anymore, and SD listen to the wrong people if they listen to someone …

(.Chris.) #123

Camden was split up so it could be played at some game show without it taking too long to play the map, people liked what they played so we got to try it out and SD made this thread:

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37780-Trainyard

Seems a fair amount of people were in favour of splitting maps and suggested they did the same for other maps, which they went ahead and did and now everyone is crying.

(viruzz.) #124

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;487523]Poor maps make a poor game ! that’s all
Look at the player retention ! never see such a game deserted so quick, ho sorry BRINK do better …

But who care nobody is playing this game anymore, and SD listen to the wrong people if they listen to someone …[/QUOTE]

I’m sorry if I sound rude, but I seriously do not think you have any right to make decisions for them, nor push decisions down their throat. Sure, you’re allowed to play the ‘alpha’/beta. That doesn’t mean that the things you or we want is instantly right. SD possibly knows perfectly well what they are doing, but you obviously are not in a position to respond in such matter. Sure you might hate something about the game, or dislike something, you still use some manner to post your opinion regardless.

That said, yes the game is a let down at the moment, sure not a lot of people are consistently playing it… but hey it’s a closed beta. I do not expect people to stick to the game 24/7, nor do I expect the servers to be full all the time. Maps being perfect? Obviously not, that’s why we are playing it. To balance it all out. And in case you haven’t noticed, it’s a development progress, you should be proud of being a part of it. Development of such things never goes fast and needs lots of testing. Every change influences the game and thus needs to be tested again. Every map still has a long way to go and are no where near finished. So instead of instantly being rude and start attacking SD, think your posts through a bit. Moaning like this on the forum isn’t gonna help either, and i’m 100% sure my post right now, isn’t helping as well.

Constructive feedback my friend. That’s what help best. Furthermore, just think a bit before you say something and HOW you say something. Now to be honest, I think it would be rather clever to go back on topic in a way it’s meant to be. Otherwise the topic might as well be closed.

(BomBaKlaK) #125

[QUOTE=.Chris.;487526]Camden was split up so it could be played at some game show without it taking too long to play the map, people liked what they played so we got to try it out and SD made this thread:

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37780-Trainyard

Seems a fair amount of people were in favour of splitting maps and suggested they did the same for other maps, which they went ahead and did and now everyone is crying.[/QUOTE]

Since long time people ask for the original camden or at least with the doc run, who was the best (and only) doc run in this game.
So I clearly don’t understand this move …

To Viruzz thx for the lesson, it’s not like if we give some constructive feedback since month …
so please keep your sanctimonious dady post.

(ailmanki) #126

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;487530]Since long time people ask for the original camden or at least with the doc run, who was the best (and only) doc run in this game.
So I clearly don’t understand this move …

To Viruzz thx for the lesson, it’s not like if we give some constructive feedback since month …
so please keep your sanctimonious dady post.[/QUOTE]
Since years by now :smiley:

(rookie1) #127

Personnaly I think last objective of each maps should be the most interesting one and the longuest to achieve as a model.
WC length is ok ,actual map get beefed with the lifter phases.
LB will be more with last objective (hopefully)
Victoria:has a good length also ,Wall and wagons make the hot spots
Trainyard: is too short. Should beef the last objective or add one
CW is perfect imo as for map length (2 great main objectives and an interesting space between the two for visual,side objec and battle )
BS : look ok too in length size

1 objec map can also be done its all depend how its done ,how long its take ,all long of terrain,of side object ,imo 1 only main objective can make the best map if its done right.
1,2,3,4 objectives map can be made its all depends how its made
If a map use many object (like 4) I would make them fast object to achieve except the last one.

(viruzz.) #128

[QUOTE=BomBaKlaK;487530]
To Viruzz thx for the lesson, it’s not like if we give some constructive feedback since month …
so please keep your sanctimonious dady post.[/QUOTE]

If you read the forum post about Trainyard you might understand their decisions a bit more. 90% was positive feedback, obviously they’ll adapt to that. Not it’s changed, and people start moaning. That ain’t exactly fair now is it? Here once again to clear your mind up: http://forums.warchest.com/showthrea...7780-Trainyard So SD is listening more then well enough to the community.

Like I said before, it’s not your task to shove decisions down their throat. They can make their own decisions and they can base their decisions on their own chosen factors and information.

Now i’m only trying to point out that you’re behaving like a dick and nothing else. If that’s what you want to keep up. Go ahead.

(BomBaKlaK) #129

Dead link

[QUOTE=viruzz.;487541]
Like I said before, it’s not your task to shove decisions down their throat. They can make their own decisions and they can base their decisions on their own chosen factors and information.

Now i’m only trying to point out that you’re behaving like a dick and nothing else. If that’s what you want to keep up. Go ahead.[/QUOTE]

I’m not here to take decisions, I just notes that all the servers are empty a patch day, during the WE, with new content we all waiting for since month, and let SD know that I do not like and do not understand these choices …
I hope to see this game take a real understandable direction one day, for now I see no way out.

I don’t believe anymore

(ailmanki) #130

[QUOTE=viruzz.;487541]If you read the forum post about Trainyard you might understand their decisions a bit more. 90% was positive feedback, obviously they’ll adapt to that. Not it’s changed, and people start moaning. That ain’t exactly fair now is it? Here once again to clear your mind up: http://forums.warchest.com/showthrea...7780-Trainyard So SD is listening more then well enough to the community.

Like I said before, it’s not your task to shove decisions down their throat. They can make their own decisions and they can base their decisions on their own chosen factors and information.

Now i’m only trying to point out that you’re behaving like a dick and nothing else. If that’s what you want to keep up. Go ahead.[/QUOTE]

(acQu) #131

http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37780-Trainyard

psht i made no post in this thread :smiley:

This one was also something: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37346-Objectives-per-map

(BomBaKlaK) #132

[QUOTE=acQu;487545]psht i made no post in this thread :smiley:

This one was also something: http://forums.warchest.com/showthread.php/37346-Objectives-per-map[/QUOTE]

Due to the number of votes I think this poll is much more relevant (84 % of people want more than 2 objs)

(.Chris.) #133

3 or less objectives also includes 2 objectives.

Only 22% wanted more than 2 objectives, 3 or more.

(BomBaKlaK) #134

[QUOTE=.Chris.;487547]3 or less objectives also includes 2 objectives.

Only 22% wanted more than 2 objectives, 3 or more.[/QUOTE]

Yeah so 3 or less, mean “THREE” or less, I mean you vote at first point for the number you want then it’s around this number, but all maps turn to a 2 Obj version … and 22% wanted around 4 obj … don’t tweak the numbers.

(.Chris.) #135

Three or less means they want either 3 objectives, 2 objectives or 1 objectives, three is the maximum not the minimum.

Three or more mean they want either 3 objectives, 4 objective 5 objectives and so on, three being the minimum.

(BomBaKlaK) #136

meh we can debate on this all night, but when I see 3 that supposed to be based on 3 as a primary target, not 2 …

(prophett) #137

Poll was flawed

(.Chris.) #138

Nothing to debate, one option includes 3 and everything below it, the other includes 3 and everything above it.

(rookie1) #139

3 is the magic number …
imagine Trainyard (as it is) with only one object ,the last objective,That would be :frowning: and a bad map.
But it Can be done of one only if the map is rethink …what im saying what ever the number of objectives is, it all depend How the map is done to be to fun

(ailmanki) #140

Since the vote allowed to vote for “2 or less” its clearly that people wanted 3 objectives.