Splash Damage reputation

(Virus047) #21

I agree. When ET:QW was in alpha/beta stages the community which largely was not involved in the actual development of the game was basically split between not wanting vehicles and wanting vehicles among the many wants and demands. You had various communities looking forward to the game because of the title/developer and general need for a new good solid competitive and balanced game. In the competitive sense you had the RTCW/ET fans wanting less vehicle and you had the Battlefield fans wanting more vehicles. Using this as an example. Please BF fans don’t assault me because I picked your beloved title. :slight_smile: Each individual person and each established gaming community to some degree has there own preferences towards games in terms of what they want and expect. Really its hard for a developer to make everyone happy because of that.

So long as the game is balanced, continues to get support/tweaks (which SD has a great reputation of doing) and remains unique in some ways to keep gamers attention so not to be dull or boring to quickly. I think most gamers would agree they would be happy with the final product and the game as a whole would be rated as a success.

(.Chris.) #22

Speaking mainly about EU here and my memory is fuzzy, I don’t really remember anyone asking for more vehicles but do remember BF players asking for better control of existing vehicles to be more like BF. There were load of people asking for them to be removed though as you said without even trying the game and they also hated the idea of playing as the Strogg, again without playing. Then when the public beta’s arrived a huge amount of people assumed it were the finished game, whined about the bugs and such rather than give feedback and the hatred just snowballed from there, mostly on sites like crossfire.

Also during the early days of ET:QW compeition, in the invite channel there were some rather interesting discussions about which direction they should head in, if it weren’t for open minded players from both ET and BF I suspect promod would have just tried to be ET and failed miserably, it’s shame a lot of people thought the meanie comp players were just out to ban and remove everything unique when in fact they only removed two things outright in competition, radar and fliers and restricted everything else to balance things for 6v6. Also still wonder what it would have been like if fliers were classed as heavy vehicles (a team could only use 1 heavy at a time).

(Virus047) #23

I remember Promod’s development path the same way. Thankfully the two major communities (ET/BF) that formed the competitive branch of ET:QW in NA and EU both agreed to go with proper tweaking for a healthy blend of infantry and vehicle combat. It honestly was pretty fun with some good settings towards the end of its run in NA. We even had a very healthy setup for 5v5 Infantry only that really satisfied that group as well.

(kilL_888) #24

after watching this and bringing back some very nice memories, i have decided to be a little stronger on the “no ironsight” front.

have the balls and go for a non-ironsight approach, more movement and evasion centric.

ns2 went the non-ironsight approach and they did just fine.

it’s just a gameplay thing. the ironsight slows down the gameplay and if you want to create a fast paced game, there is no room for ironsights. and even though the first game that used ironsights was probably a pc game (vietcong or something), i think this feature is particular helpful for console players. with a mouse you don’t need that extra zoom though. so, it’s not relevant for a pc game. and tbh, i prefered the light machine guns+light class in brink because i almost never had to use ironsights.

… but, if you really, for the love of all that’s holy, have to put ironsights in, do it exactly like call of duty, because this is one of the things that’s perfect about call of duty. don’t deny it, you know i’m right. :tongue: and of course, the ironsights need to look really hi-res and stuff. :cool:

(dommafia) #25

[QUOTE=tokamak;412029]If you put your two sentences in a different order then the idea of not limiting the polls to the forum but keeping a special poll section on the main site becomes apparent.

Right now it´s a shame they keep sinking to the bottom and that only the most recent one is being discussed. Having an orderly list of stuff you want to know from the community including a link to the forum discussion. That way all the polls keep being voted on and the discussions all receive a fresh influx of new posts.

On top of that it also shows to outsiders that you’re a company that is listening to your community. Some hapless visitor clicks on the poll section, becomes intrigued with the different questions he or she may not have ever considered, comes to a conclusion, wants to vote, gets lured into the discussion and presto you’re part of the community. Much more effective than giving a price for having made one post on the forum (grumble).

I believe that’s how I got started on the W:ET forums a decade ago. I believe I wanted to vote on which map I preferred and got sucked in ever since.[/QUOTE]

Agreed.

About iron sight, the game that has done a pretty good job of this I have to say is ETQW. I thought it was perfectly balanced .

(INF3RN0) #26

[QUOTE=dommafia;412685]Agreed.

About iron sight, the game that has done a pretty good job of this I have to say is ETQW. I thought it was perfectly balanced .[/QUOTE]

ETQW did iron sights better than any other game that exists. Gotta give it props there.