AAPG First Released Three Years Ago

13»

Comments

  • [INF]Pietra[INF]Pietra Posts: 2Player
    I think that we all need to say thanks to you devs for the hard and great work you have done with AAPG: it really is a worthy successor to AA3, which i loved as much as i did for AA2 (that was also the first game a played when i was a kid). But as you said AAPG is not done, is not perfect yet, but it will be if you add some cool attachments (which were available in the previous america's army games) such as the suppressor, the acog scope (2x/4x) for the m4, the granade launcher and maybe also a couple of new weapons in use by the US Army: the scar-h and the sniper rifle M110 for axample. That will be sooo cool and will bring a breath of fresh air that will probably bring back a large portion of the player base, which has been missing a little bit in these past few weeks. Anyway, congrats for everything you've done and for what you'll deliver in the future... surprise us !
    P.s. i hope you will forgive me if i misspelled some words or done any mistakes, but it's so hard to learn english (especially american english) properly here in Italy ! :) ;)
  • Bashar_al-AssadBashar_al-Assad Posts: 580Player
    edited September 2016
    I think that we all need to say thanks to you devs for the hard and great work you have done with AAPG: it really is a worthy successor to AA3, which i loved as much as i did for AA2 (that was also the first game a played when i was a kid). But as you said AAPG is not done, is not perfect yet, but it will be if you add some cool attachments (which were available in the previous america's army games) such as the suppressor, the acog scope (2x/4x) for the m4, the granade launcher and maybe also a couple of new weapons in use by the US Army: the scar-h and the sniper rifle M110 for axample. That will be sooo cool and will bring a breath of fresh air that will probably bring back a large portion of the player base, which has been missing a little bit in these past few weeks. Anyway, congrats for everything you've done and for what you'll deliver in the future... surprise us !
    P.s. i hope you will forgive me if i misspelled some words or done any mistakes, but it's so hard to learn english (especially american english) properly here in Italy ! :) ;)

    +1
    Where is the upvote button?
  • [ENG]Uni-Sol[ENG]Uni-Sol Posts: 3,193Player
    edited September 2016
    Probably too late but guy couple posts above is a man after my own heart..

    So, yeah..

    * Whatever you see in my sig (+ Bipod)
    * FN SCAR (w/attachments)

    To think, the SCAR is even in the AA comics, I think not using it would be a crime. Lets keep to the story :mrgreen:
    If my trollery drives you crazy, you'd better put on your seatbelt.






  • Hey there! Although I am relatively newer to the active community, AA was my first fps about 10 years ago I ever tried out. I loved it because of the intense reality that was in your face from beginning to end. This is what people want to play and watch. The way this game has progressed over the years has been fascinating and I can't imagine how awesome it must of been for the veterans here to see how far things have come.
    This game, is working towards being one of the most sophisticated, knowledge driven, highly competitive fps games to get mainstream attention.
    All it takes is a major push in marketing, a large payout cash tourney, high intensity streaming, and a group of teams people will get their money's worth watching.
    Its not easier said than done, either.
    People take for granted how many great qualities this game provides. We can have all the maps our hearts collectively desire and now the REALISM we crave to perform team based streamed action packed devastation.


    I support and appreciate this game along with it's community, as well as the morals and respect everyone keeps unlike ANY other game around...we are the real players around here, aa is the real learning curve, CS is easy, COD your godly and makes no sense, battlefield took further leaps then aa with vehicles and air force, but we have a user tweaked government funded game at our disposal to eventually have everything anyone could ever want in a game....for the public, and more so for the competitors


    Thank you once again devs for keeping at it
  • TheTotsTheTots Posts: 2,279Player
    I split the other discussion into it's own thread. Please keep this thread relevant to the OP.
    The game wasn't made exactly to my specifications, so I feel it's broken.

  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    edited September 2016
    Saccho wrote: »
    fgn_denial wrote: »
    comp
    Large games grow comp scenes. Comp scenes don't grow games. Many people are in denial about that.

    Kind of a useless reply as it works both ways if the comp scene was bigger in this game the game would be bigger too. If no teams left comp over this 3 year course you would have 2x bigger player base.

    So overall it is ok to hate comp for whatever reason whether your not good enough, don't like the players associated with it or whatever your reason is. But what is not ok is to throw around useless comp bashing statements.

    I can definitely see how many people would be in denial in your opinion but what if your opinion is wrong. It's not really a what if because you are wrong plain and simple. If counter strike had no competition there would of never been a Counter Strike Global Offensive built with CS pros feedback. There would also be a dead counter strike just as dead as AA2, and AA3. AA2 had a big comp following from the beginning to the end and was way more popular than AA3 and AAPG by a ton of players. AA3 had no comp following but definitely still had a few teams interested in playing comp but as a result the player base stayed the same throughout it's existence. Call of duty series. Call of duty 4 had a huge comp following in fact the only thing keeping that game alive was and is comp. Cod MW2 had a huge comp following and at one point 100,000 players playing at once. Blacks op 1 was the last cod to have a big comp scene and as a result every cod after that hasn't been able to keep anywhere close to 100,000 players on at once. They struggle to average more than 20,000. After the first month no comp scene comes out of it and 2-3 months later the game has 6,000 avg players.

    Point is if these games had comp scenes they would be bigger but if the game was also bigger the comp scene would be there you need both you don't get 1 or other you get both. If the comp scene in AAPG was to grow then so would the game its self. The game doesn't grow without the comp scene growing and the comp scene doesn't grow without the game growing.


    @whiplash27 I agree with you but IMO AAPG went downhill as soon as 2 comp beta leaders got really angry and instead of removing those 2 and continuing on with this group they disbanded it completely. This hurt the game a ton in the long run whether people want to admit it or not. You also had AA3 beta captains (people who loved AA3 the biggest failed game out there) allowed to participate in this group and voice their different opinions. (These guys seem to have too much power over there, I dunno my opinion) Let's face it if you loved America's Army 3 and played it from release until AA:PG game came out or you had access to this game through closed beta. Then you should not be giving feedback on major game play components as you are trying to sway the game into a AA3 remake. These guys think America's Army 3 failed because of bugs and wasn't complete upon release. They want AA:PG to be AA3 but with more features and content.

    Now to where just the devs have failed in this game. Overall they wanted this game to be unique so anything that AA2 or AA3 did a certain way and they were to add it to this game they decide to change it to be unique. Instead of realizing AA2 or AA3 got it right mostly AA2.

    Primary Example: Is VIP. AA2 did VIP perfectly but the Devs decided they wanted to be unique so they changed the entire core elements of the mode from AA2 without realizing what made it so great in the first place. (They didn't play AA2, we did and this is the big problem with bringing in stuff from AA2)

    C4 Gametype: Again wanted to be different than any other game so they decided to make the bomb secure able. This has been fixed now but is still an example of them trying to be unique.

    Medic System: They should of followed other medic systems already out in games to me you have 3 solid options: #1 leave it exactly like AA2 where only a couple people are medics and can heal people. #2 Put it like AA3 where you need to know the correct answer for each treatment again only a few were medics capable of reviving. #3 Copy battlefield series as you have Squad roles so example what AAPG could of done is Medic role=m16 rifle (can revive teammates) Assault role=m4 rifle (teammates can grab ammo off these guys) Support role=m249/saw (they are the only role that can go supported) Sniper role=m24 or m14 (these guys can spot enemys) This is just an example and it could of been done differently but still considered same as bf series. (A important thing to note about battlefield is the time after death you can be revived for is only about 10 seconds till you respawn)
    Another solid option would have been to just allow anyone to revive but limit their revives to 1 in 6v6 and 1-2 in 12v12. (Most likely 1 across the board)
    *Another idea they could of also done would be to have a medic cool down period so if you revive someone you can't revive anyone else for 30secs-1min depending on how many players(6v6 would be lower than 12v12)

    *The #1 thing out of every game out there with reviving is not anyone can revive, only certain teammates can. There is a reason all games with revive are like this whether every soldier is a trained medic or not now there is a reason why no game allows every single player to revive. Whether they were trying to be unique or not with this it is unique but not in a good way. You know right away other game developers have probably/most likely thought about trying this but realized the game play issues it would rise or the trouble it could cause.

    Supported Fire: There is no game that I can think of that has anchoring in the way it works in this game. AA2 got this right by making you have to deploy a bipod and not be able to aim where ever you want due to the bipod being deployed. The amount of recoil, sway and everything you have while not anchored compared to legit almost none you have while anchored is a complete joke. Is this realistic probably not in the slightest. When making a game do you choose realism over balance concerns, nope.

    Lean(Lean is not really them trying to be unique it just something that was not added into the game properly IMO. If you look at every game out there lean is fair for both sides they see the same, but not in this game. Whether that is because it is realistic or not I do not know exactly): In AA2 if you leaned and threw a grenade it would take into account you were leaning making it really hard to be accurate with a nade or flash while leaning this is easy to try as it exists on AA2.5 assist and you don't need players playing to see this) In AA:PG if you lean and throw a nade it throws the nade just as accurately as if you were aiming that nade standing up/still. Minor issue but still an issue.
    Also lean in AAPG 2 players can lean and one player can see more than the other. In AA2 both players saw the exact same and in every other game with lean in it it is like that. Lean in this game should also be press button to lean and no hold button to lean as this allows a player to easily quick lean back and forth and exploit lean to be used in undesired way. They have the menu option to take hold to lean off but this is how it should be by default and not allowed to change.

    Of course there is other examples of them trying to be unique in this game but these are just a few of the top of my head.

    Another huge mistake was deciding to make a directx 9 only game instead of directx 11 at the time they probably thought they would of got more people by supporting dx9 only but the sad truth is there is no card that doesn't support dx11 that can run this game smoothly. So at the very least both dx9 and dx11 should've been supported.
    Pie charts + Graphs= Very Bad.



  • .!.dgodfather.!.dgodfather Posts: 461Player
    edited September 2016
    @whiplash27 I agree with you but IMO AAPG went downhill as soon as 2 comp beta leaders got really angry and instead of removing those 2 and continuing on with this group they disbanded it completely. This hurt the game a ton in the long run whether people want to admit it or not. You also had AA3 beta captains (people who loved AA3 the biggest failed game out there) allowed to participate in this group and voice their different opinions. (These guys seem to have too much power over there, I dunno my opinion) Let's face it if you loved America's Army 3 and played it from release until AA:PG game came out or you had access to this game through closed beta. Then you should not be giving feedback on major game play components as you are trying to sway the game into a AA3 remake. These guys think America's Army 3 failed because of bugs and wasn't complete upon release. They want AA:PG to be AA3 but with more features and content.

    TLDR it all...

    I'm in the reference of the AA3 beta captains. There were 2 sides to this group. People who wanted an AA2 remake and those who found things they liked about AA3 and wanted to see the good from that be a part of the next game. It wasn't just the captains. I personally did not want a hand-for-hand AA3 remake (or AA2 for that matter). Like it or not, AAPG is as close to resembling that of AA2 in a lot of ways. The AA2 group won, but did they? AAPG is terrible. Is that because it is so much like AA2 (I doubt it, but it needs to be said) or is it something else? That will be discussed for a long time. What I have noticed is that it has died quicker than AA3 did. They've given the impression over and over again that they will not have a complete AA2 remake. That hurts a lot of people, but that is the fact that stands today. I can't and won't deny that AA2 was a great game, but I don't think a prettier version of that put out today wallops the competition. Additionally it would take years to develop, so why invest in dated gaming?

    I'm with Saccho on the theory he states. Games evolve competition, not the other way around. As a developer do I want to pull in a large player base and would competition players be a fine target? Yes. So yes, games do develop from competition. That's what you see today and in many ways it works, but that isn't how everything started, nor is it good for the future. All the games put out are very much similar in many ways. Developers aren't putting out anything that is really different and that's what hurts gaming for the future. People have tons of options of very similar games and the potential for large player bases are divided. Until someone does something that isn't similar to so many other games, landing a huge player base is unlikely for many games, especially with a small studio like AAGS. AA3 was pretty unique. Was it terribly written and performed awfully? Yes.

    What was unique about it?
    The medic system was like no other system I've seen in a game. Complicated? Maybe.... Yes
    The environments and map design was pretty strong. The maps were large, but areas of conflict were very well structured.
    The graphics immersed you more than AAPG. AAPG is a cartoon.
    Damage model - You suffered penalties for damage taken and in different capacities. That damage highly reflected your ability to shoot.
    Unknowingly and apparently unhappily (based on Army rules), they had come up with an ingenious way of dealing with enemy revivals. Incapping. You could kill a downed enemy by shooting their motionless body. Yet a downed enemy being revived would still be a decisive factor in the round.
    ES2 - Equipment supplies throughout the map randomly spawned.
    Under-handing explosives/smokes
    A well designed battle planner for gauging tactical approaches
    The list can go further, but I'm out of time...

    Are all of these completely unique? No. But the thought behind the systems designed all worked together in a very satisfying and unique fashion.

    I could also provide a list of things that I hated, but they were mostly related to coding issues.

    Do I want AA3 back? [TOS Violation] no!

    Do I want a unique experience? Yes.
    Fragweiser Website
    Make AA Great Again!
  • 4DChessGenius4DChessGenius Posts: 2,161Player
    edited September 2016
    A direct clone of AA2 could work today, but I'm not quite sure if it'd be more of a nostalgia thing or because the game would be that much better than anything else out there. I do think gaming is moving more towards character/hero type systems that push for team play without having mechanics that force it. Where each character/hero plays into each other's abilities and putting together the right combination of characters is extremely important. It's not as simple in FPS games, but I think it's the way of the future at this point in gaming. FPS games that can successfully do that kind of stuff will be more popular going forward (CS notwithstanding).
    You joined the world's greatest army to become a graphic artist? Outstanding!
  • =Ratchet==Ratchet= Posts: 3Player
    Dear developers, I'd like to thank you for your hard work on this game that we enjoy every day ^^ You guys have created a wonderful game with an awesome community. I'm just a regular player but I really wanted to contact developers for a very long time and hear their opinion about an idea of mine ( and I think many others : ) ) Many people play this game on a daily basis, and more and more people ranking up so fast in the game. I think it would be an awesome thing if players were able to rank up to officer ranks once they became SMA's. Like colonel, general etc.. and wear those insignias with pride so others would know how experienced are they. I think it would be a really cool feature of the game, maybe more camos scopes and weapons would be awesome as well. ^-^ Just an idea, but i felt like i must share it :proud:
  • (Beer_Me)Roach(Beer_Me)Roach Posts: 249Player
    edited September 2016
    How will any of this affect the Usermade maps?

    Also I noticed the loading video that is seemingly from the comic strip illudes to long range weapons , does this mean we may see some long range weapons??

    We surely have maps now that will support them .
  • AvgusteAvguste Posts: 125Player
    You are right, my fault. I meant whether the next version will keep Proving Grounds type of play or go back to what made AA successful back in the day.

  • -v3.Bart!-v3.Bart! Posts: 125Player
    @dgodfather, not exactly true, as I've seen all posts in the private comp group forum, but that's another story.

    @colts, leaning in AA2 is also not exactly that 2 people leaning see exactly the same thing, but I beleive someone already explained this by pictures with FOV's. However, in AAPG this is more extreme as it was in AA2.

    I also think 1 mistake in the start was to balance for high pingers. Colts, you remember when you played a scrim vs us in the beta? you guys all had pings >100, but it actually made it impossible for us to hit you guys it seemed, due to the way hitreg was for high pings.

    We also had a guy in our team which sometimes had his connection go nuts. At that moment however, it seems like he just won every close combat firefight cause of the hitreg system.
    SNLSTB.Bart^
  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    SSKbart wrote: »
    @dgodfather, not exactly true, as I've seen all posts in the private comp group forum, but that's another story.

    @colts, leaning in AA2 is also not exactly that 2 people leaning see exactly the same thing, but I beleive someone already explained this by pictures with FOV's. However, in AAPG this is more extreme as it was in AA2.

    I also think 1 mistake in the start was to balance for high pingers. Colts, you remember when you played a scrim vs us in the beta? you guys all had pings >100, but it actually made it impossible for us to hit you guys it seemed, due to the way hitreg was for high pings.

    We also had a guy in our team which sometimes had his connection go nuts. At that moment however, it seems like he just won every close combat firefight cause of the hitreg system.

    Yup I remember and I have been on the other side of that many times
    Pie charts + Graphs= Very Bad.



Sign In or Register to comment.