Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast
Results 41 to 50 of 54

Thread: DEAR UBI PT. 2: DO NOT RELEASE THIS GAME! (Also, What % complete is GRO?) | Forums

  1. #41
    Member LovelessMemory's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Gensoukyou
    Posts
    137
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassghost View Post
    What about this... Windows... I use? It sure seems to crash quite a bit...
    Simple fix: get a Mac /weak troll

    On a more serious note, haven't crashed lately and a good chunk of my past crashes were due to me using an old Mac to play. Since I put together my new gaming comp it's been buttercream smooth.

    Specialist 23 (NS2000 SP) ~ Assault 3 (M500 SV) ~ Recon 8 (SRS SD)
    IGN - DreamlessMemory

  2. #42
    I joined 5 days ago and played non-stop as a recon allowing me to get to level 20 in 4 days flat. If any of you have played within the last 5 days, you've probably seen me. My IGN is Etoshi.

    What's up Etoshi Yes I have played with you!


    To nabakov87,

    You shouldn't come to a forum and complain "This game is bad because I choose to play with randoms and lone wolf, rather than make friends with skilled players and join fireteams" If you really want to improve your overall experience do the latter. Within my first 3 hours of gameplay I had like 15 people on my friends list. I took notice of who was good and asked if I could join up with them. This community has been pretty friendly and welcoming to newcomers.

    The matchmaking is unbalanced mostly because many of the winning teams are in fact 2 fire teams of 4 vs randoms. Players using Teamwork and communicating will always trump a team of randoms not communicating in any online competitive game whether FPS, RPG, RTS etc. I love the fact that this game keeps "parties" together very well. Something GRFS and other games fail at doing.

    In short, find players with skill, make friends and play with them.

  3. #43
    Division Agent Freelancer852's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Calgary AB, Canada
    Posts
    1,857
    Quote Originally Posted by RealHempman View Post
    If the game crashes, it is not ready for public consumption.
    Unfortunately, we don't live in a perfect world.

    Battlefield 3 is a Triple-A title with millions of dollars behind it and it's been crashing almost every time I play it since they released the first "big patch" to "balance" a lot of the issues they were having. Let's not even mention the amount of OBVIOUS issues that they created while "balancing" the game either. Nothing changed on my system either, at the time I had been playing the game daily, no system updates or anything occurred on the day the BF3 patch came out so it's obviously the game. A lot of other people have been reporting the same thing of the BF3 forums, we've been helpful and submitted DxDiag reports and all the other information they've requested and it's been more than three months now. No fix.

    The point I'm making here is that GRO is a free-to-play title being developed for the PC. It was originally developed to give PC gamers an alternate to Future Soldier since Ubisoft didn't want to bring Future Soldier to PC due to piracy concerns. The budget for GRO is incredibly small, meaning that the development team is much smaller than what a Triple-A title gets. There are often hundreds of employees working on a Triple-A title, I think I remember hearing that the GRO team could be counted in the dozens.

    This is a small project, yet it has been dedicated to the PC which makes it 100% better than most games out there that were developed with consoles as the primary platform. The developers are doing an AMAZING job for the hurdles I imagine they've had to overcome and I give them props. Issues are being noted and fixed, they are fairly active amongst the community (even if you don't know it), and they have a great vision for where they want the game to go.

    Hopefully the open beta will bring some optimization and stability changes with it, but you have to keep in mind that it's still open BETA. Not finished, not released. By participating in a beta test you are acknowledging that the game isn't finished and that there's gonna be issues. Just because it doesn't run on your system doesn't mean you stop participating, it means you send in the required information so they CAN get it running on your machine. Granted, there are some exceptions were the developers need to prioritize their time. If you're using a 5 year old computer and someone else is using a brand new one and the game isn't working for either, the guy with the newer system is gonna get looked at first.

    These are all realities of the game development industry; same goes for pushing out updates. Just because you reported an issues doesn't mean it's gonna be fixed in the next patch. I've been told that the GRO developers are usually three to four builds ahead of what we're playing. Meaning that when you report something it's gonna take a MINIMUM of three builds before it actually shows up changed.
    Volunteer Forum Moderator
    Tom Clancy's The Division


    Forum Rules
    Sig, Avatar, & Image Guidelines

    Official Website
    Official Facebook
    Official Twitter


  4. #44
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    3
    While I'd like to say that I don't think it's ready for release, I think the game may just not be for me. I'd like to start by mentioning that I LOVE the UI and most of the laggy hit detection problems from phase two are resolved. Here are my main issues with the game:

    1. Critical hits are a train-wreck - every time I die to a crit I feel cheated, whereas landing crits don't provide a comparable positive experience. Also bad for any potential serious competitive scene. Critical hits are bad design.

    2. Temporary magnum ammo and armor inserts boils down to paying for power. Personally it's a major turnoff, and a strong disincentive to spend any money on the game. Overall it results in similar negative experiences as crits.

    3. That most higher level weapons are strictly better than lower level ones is bad too, but it's not nearly as much as the other two. Matchmaking can largely hide this with a larger player-base.

    4. Most importantly: the in game store has nothing I would want to buy with real money. There isn't enough in the way of visual customization options. More equal power gun customizations would be good too.

    Overall I find it to be quite polished. And I blame the small population for poor matchmaking.
    Last edited by zzSleeper; 07-11-2012 at 05:20 AM.

  5. #45
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    716
    Quote Originally Posted by zzSleeper View Post
    1. Critical hits are a train-wreck - every time I die to a crit I feel cheated, whereas landing crits don't provide a comparable positive experience. Also bad for any potential serious competitive scene. Critical hits are bad design.
    Right on, brother.
    Quote Originally Posted by zzSleeper View Post
    2. Temporary magnum ammo and armor inserts boils down to paying for power. Personally it's a major turnoff, and a strong disincentive to spend any money on the game. Overall it results in similar negative experiences as crits.
    We'll have to see what the higher tier inserts cost before judging this.
    Quote Originally Posted by zzSleeper View Post
    3. That most higher level weapons are strictly better than lower level ones is bad too, but it's not nearly as much as the other two. Matchmaking can largely hide this with a larger player-base.
    Not necessarily true. There are some lower level weapons with unique stats that there is no higher level counterpart to.
    Quote Originally Posted by zzSleeper View Post
    4. Most importantly: the in game store has nothing I would want to buy with real money. There isn't enough in the way of visual customization options. More equal power gun customizations would be good too.
    Like all F2P games, more cosmetic changes will come out over time.
    BeefJerkyHunter
    My WordPress Blog

  6. #46
    Quote Originally Posted by LiquidX74 View Post
    on the issue of RP generation vs ghost coins..

    I think the most RP you can gain from a complete match is somewhere around 500, meaning in a match with 2 rounds, each round will likely award somewhere around 250 rp maximum. This varies greatly based on time spent in the game - faster matches reward less. The average player probably gets about 70-100 rp for a 10 minute game - and lets face it, currently, longer games are becoming less and less frequent as player skill increases, understanding of the objectives, MM flaws, and FT become more common and pronounced. But for the sake of argument and easy math, lets say the average player takes home a reward of 100 RP, or 10 RP per minute.

    So currently, there is also the mechanic of MM/queue formation. I would say that for every 10 min game, you spend another 5 min waiting for the MM system to find a game, build the teams, load the game, do warmup, etc. So roughly 1/2 of your time spent "playing" is actually spent waiting for the game to start. This means that over a 3 hour play session, you will actually only be playing for about 120 min, and waiting for games for the remaining 60 min.

    So the average player is taking home 1200 rp for their session. Depending on how they spend this, it can be a good reward or a poor one. For example, if you want to stay stocked on grenades - you're probably looking at buying a minimum of 25 grenades. That's 700 RP. You're also looking at buying armor inserts - I find a 70 rp insert will last me about 4 games - but it really depends on the level of competition and how often I die. But lets just say it's an average of 4 games. You buy 4 inserts every 4 games (if you have lvl 27 armor), or 280 RP every 4 games x 3 = 840 RP spent every 12 games. Already you can see that with just armor inserts and grenades, you have to be earning more than 10 RP per minute played just to maintain your income, as we're spending north of 1500 RP over a time that we've suggested nets us 1200 RP.

    Now there are a lot of flaws in these numbers - we don't really know what the average RP per minute reward is, and the rates at which you go through grenades and armor inserts is highly variable, and of course with armor inserts and grenades, you can easily kill more people, meaning more RP (maybe - we don't even know how RP is calculated). I think that these numbers are probably off by a lot (for the sake of easy math) - but nevertheless, unless the rate of RP gain is double what I've outlined above, I don't see any way for an average player to ensure he is outfitted to the best of his ability, and save up for guns, addons, upgrades, etc. This also doesn't account for RP bonuses from completing challenges, 1st victory of the day, etc.

    I would suggest that I average closer to 200 rp per game - I try not to buy grenades, using only the ones from quest rewards, but I do keep myself fully stocked on the armor inserts. However even with the larger net RP, I find it to be a rather long process to save up for better guns. The "problem" isn't apparent when you're looking at the lower end guns (lvl 1-15) because realistically, you can gain the RP to purchase those in a couple of play sessions. But when it comes to the monstrous costs of the high end weapons, I think this is really where the GC imbalance occurs. A lvl 30 weapon will likely take me a month of play sessions to save up for via RP - if I continue to spend my RP on inserts and/or grenades.

    I don't know about you guys, but that's beginning to sound a lot like work, and a poor investment of time to me. I'd rather just spend the $7 or whatever it costs and buy the gun outright. This is where Ubi is going to make their money, and it's where the model becomes profitable. In the beta, I simply did not have the focus to get any of those weapons for a multitude of reasons. 1) I got bored, so I leveled up other classes and spent thousands of RP on them, instead of on my main guy, 2) I looked at the stats between the lvl 10 gun and the lvl 30 gun and it seems the lvl 10 gun is superior in at least 3 categories - so why bother, and 3) For the time and dedication spent saving up for that lvl 30 gun (which I have no idea if it actually performs better or worse than the lvl 10) - I could buy tons of grenades and apply them liberally in matches - which is more fun. All of these factors will still exist in open beta.

    So I think the real problem here, from Ubi's standpoint anyways - is that while a lot of people will see those guns as unattainable via RP grinding and will outright buy them, it's likely that an equal number of people will see them as unattainable and simply not bother since lower level weapons seem better from the stats, plus time invested in a weapon makes the player more comfortable with the lower level gun, plus there is really no way to see if the higher level gun is better for your play style or not. Thus, there is very little incentive to get the high end guns. I suspect that if ubi were to implement some kind of way to test the guns (independent of character level) - that more people would invest in the game.

    And make no mistake, those who choose to grind RP are just as valuable, if not more valuable than those who buy their guns with real cash. The players that grind will ensure the game has a player base that logs on regularly to play - where the guy who buys his stuff may become bored more quickly because he no longer has any goal to achieve. But as valuable as those players are, they probably outnumber the people who will actually buy GC 2 or 3 to 1, so the actual revenue stream will be limited. I think there are two major issues here for this game becoming wildly successful and popular. 1) lower level guns SEEM to offer better results than higher level guns in many cases 2) lack of an ability to test the expensive, higher level guns fails to reinforce a goal for the players who have stuck with their lvl 10 gun for months. IE: without a "real world" way to test the stats between the guns, players are less likely to upgrade - and those that do (depending on how the gun functions) may be more inclined to feel cheated and ripped off if the gun they buy doesn't out perform their lower level gun. Angry and disgruntled players are a poison to the F2P model - and the manpower it requires to moderate and refund purchases (from a development perspective, as well as a support staff (gm) perspective) can quickly outpace the additional income generated by the player base buying stuff in the first place.

    It is issues like these that need to be tested out more (from a company standpoint) than the actual game at this point - the actual game itself seems to be relatively bug free. Thus, open beta will be arriving soon whether you like it or not.
    I'm glad one person understands what i mean when i say the economics are broken. To those saying they need to push the game to make it relevant, fixing these over a month and launching a muuuuch better game is very different and a much different cost than 2 years of development. If you dont fix, it will be a bad launch and result in bad press and feedback pushing others away and avoiding it than making them interested.

  7. #47
    Quote Originally Posted by TightNinja View Post
    I joined 5 days ago and played non-stop as a recon allowing me to get to level 20 in 4 days flat. If any of you have played within the last 5 days, you've probably seen me. My IGN is Etoshi.

    What's up Etoshi Yes I have played with you!


    To nabakov87,

    You shouldn't come to a forum and complain "This game is bad because I choose to play with randoms and lone wolf, rather than make friends with skilled players and join fireteams" If you really want to improve your overall experience do the latter. Within my first 3 hours of gameplay I had like 15 people on my friends list. I took notice of who was good and asked if I could join up with them. This community has been pretty friendly and welcoming to newcomers.

    The matchmaking is unbalanced mostly because many of the winning teams are in fact 2 fire teams of 4 vs randoms. Players using Teamwork and communicating will always trump a team of randoms not communicating in any online competitive game whether FPS, RPG, RTS etc. I love the fact that this game keeps "parties" together very well. Something GRFS and other games fail at doing.

    In short, find players with skill, make friends and play with them.
    This simply isn't true and underlines a deep issue present in today's gaming culture. If a game requires players to group up, then you essentially lose more then half your audience. Look at surveys, people asking if players prefer sp vs. mp in games, and whether or not one needs both. It is usually a 60+% in favor of sp only experiences. For pc it is even higher than consoles. I also know that just about the majority of each gamer on pc is older, meaning actual jobs, families, and a person playing cs nightly or on the weekend is very different then a 14 year old grouping on wow all summer. The matter of fact truth of it is this, CS has over 95 thousand players daily, and it is by far the single most popular online game to date. It will never require players to join a clan, sure friends hop around on servers, but the vast majority of those players are pubbers who just like the game, sit, and play it when they have time. Either by searching for their favorite maps, or for the favorite servers, heck... i play based solely on ping.

    Point being, if there is ever a game where you have to group just to play, you lost the largest majority of your possible audience, games based around social media, groups, or a forum, are simply going to lack the passion and player threshold of players who simply play the game for fun, because they like it, and dont care what everyone on their friends list is doing. Those are the peopke who play what they want, enjoy it to its fullest, spread the word, and then fill servers the bulk of them...

    So, i politely disagree....

    That doesn't mean that friends won't or can't play together, or that someone who is playing as a "lone wolf" can't or doesn't actually group up. I've played on bad fireteams, squads, and had ones that destroyed me with randoms. Then I play the next match with the people who whooped me and get rolled by a different group. Teamwork is key, but anyone who knows how the game works and how the map is laid out can manage to be a part of a team, that doesn't require a squad or friends one bit.
    Last edited by nabokovfan87; 07-17-2012 at 08:34 PM.

  8. #48
    Senior Member Compassghost's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    2,568
    Quote Originally Posted by nabokovfan87 View Post
    This simply isn't true and underlines a deep issue present in today's gaming culture. If a game requires players to group up, then you essentially lose more then half your audience. Look at surveys, people asking if players prefer sp vs. mp in games, and whether or not one needs both. It iw usually a 60+% in favor of sp only experiences. For pc it is even higher than consoles. I also know that just about the majority of each gamer on pc is older, meaning actual jobs, families, and a person playing cs nightly or on the weekend is very different then a 14 year old grouping on wow all summer. The matter of fact truth of it is this, CS has over 95 thousand players daily, and it is by far the single most popular online game to date. It will never require players to join a clan, sure friends hop around on servers, but the vast majority of those players are pubbers who just like the game, sit, and play it when they have time. Either by searching for their favorite maps, or for the favorite servers, heck... i play based solely on ping.

    Point being, if there is ever a game where you have to group just to play, you lost the largest majority of your possible audience, games based around social media, groups, or a forum, is simply goint to lack the passion and player threshold of players who simply play the game for fun, because they like it, and dont care what everyone on their friends list is doing. Those are the peopke who play what they want, enjoy it to its fullest, spread the word, and then fill servers the bulk of them...

    So, i politely disagree....
    I only group to play when asked. In fact, serious MSR is from me playing alone, IIRC.


    Fireteams are not force multipliers. They are, in fact, force dividers. A fireteam will not work very cohesively with the remaining squad members, resulting in disjointed communication and group movement.

    If you watch footage of my video above, you can see that, rather than operating as a bunch of disjointed players, eight people are working together, regardless of fireteam affiliation.

    The only group you have at the end of the day is your squad. It may consist of your fireteam as well, but you will always have 4 people you don't know. And a fireteam of 4 great players and 4 RNGs will fall apart to a team of 8 competent players any day of the week. Fireteams are not always force multipliers. They can very easily become force dividers if the remaining 4 people don't integrate with fireteam tactics or choose to ignore the.


  9. #49
    Quote Originally Posted by Compassghost View Post
    The only group you have at the end of the day is your squad. It may consist of your fireteam as well, but you will always have 4 people you don't know. And a fireteam of 4 great players and 4 RNGs will fall apart to a team of 8 competent players any day of the week. Fireteams are not always force multipliers. They can very easily become force dividers if the remaining 4 people don't integrate with fireteam tactics or choose to ignore the.
    I've been forced to draw while on a fireteam by a group of 8 randoms because the other team communicated extremely well, and, outside of our fireteam, nobody else on our squad said a word. Solo or in a fireteam, communication is what wins a game. You don't have to FT to win. It was lopsided in CB because the people who were on FTs had been playing for months longer than the others and were more knowledgeable, so it gave the impression that people needed to FT to win. Not the case.

  10. #50
    Quote Originally Posted by Blank-z View Post
    I've been forced to draw while on a fireteam by a group of 8 randoms because the other team communicated extremely well, and, outside of our fireteam, nobody else on our squad said a word. Solo or in a fireteam, communication is what wins a game. You don't have to FT to win. It was lopsided in CB because the people who were on FTs had been playing for months longer than the others and were more knowledgeable, so it gave the impression that people needed to FT to win. Not the case.
    Clarification.. Communication means NOTHING. It has to do with teamwork. Seals and special forces will tell you, when they know their buddy is near them, they can tell, it is a sixth sense they get from spending time with them. Honestly, TEAMWORK wins it, that is the single only factor at all.

    I have had teams with people talking, it doesn't do anything if they don't all work together, and do so well.

    EDIT: For those interested, here is my feedback: http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php...33#post8492833
    Last edited by nabokovfan87; 07-22-2012 at 03:54 AM.

Page 5 of 6 FirstFirst ... 3456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •