opt-in 3 new maps.

1356

Comments

  • SSKnecaboSSKnecabo Posts: 2,721Player
    cK^KILL@ wrote: »
    There isn't even competition for Europe atm. There are like 2 or 3 really good and 2 decent teams that are somewhat active. The other teams aren't even playing/trying and guess why? Because this game doesn't support competition in any way.
    I know a lot of very good aapg players who enjoy playing cs:go or even quit aapg already and went to cs:go. Bushes, nade cooking/damage, terrible sound, hitreg/net code issues and especially the lack of teams are not gonna change anything about it. When I started playing competitively we were at 20+ teams at esl, we are down to 15 now with only 2 being/trying to be really active.

    Tl;dr: there are no such "foundations" attracting competition. It's more about playing other people being good at the game and enjoying it instead of getting bored by 5 darkroom nades every round.

    Another issue is ESL using SSHD in the EU league. If this changes you'll atleast see me playing in it.

    I feel you. With the Portuguese, Israelian and some Italian players having higher pings however it seems like SSHD is the way to go for EU.
  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015
    The right thing to do was to remake the same gameplay of AA2
    While AA2 will probably remain most played game I don't think a simple remake of gameplay would do enough.. In a modernization process, you respect the core design standards while also changing many things to even move those standard forward with technology that wasn't available before.
    AA2 had quite particular problems. Some still present in this iteration. AA3 had great little ideas, its fault was that it didn't deliver on the basics: game feedback. Which in a decision/performance based game (not chess at all, like some like to look at it) its basically a killjoy. But introduced incaps and decision treatment revive, "no death string" (which is great because for a decision based game, there's too much information give away, even more not in AA:PG sadly), introduced voice coms and a battle-planner, OneMap-MultipleMissions, etc, etc. So lots of small improvements, betrayed by other bad aspects.
    So PG is/was definitely a chance to move forward with the backtrack of a successful experience and nice ideas. The game feedback is back, but along with a couple of great ideas are also bad ones that de-characterize what the game has been so far and even put it behind AA2 in some aspects.

    I could understand that some decisions come from economic development. For example I hate 3D tags with passion. But I can understand that with one system they solve several game mechanics: Your teammates position, name and medical needs, report enemies, objectives location; all in front of you, in context. So it's frugal and smart from a development stand point I guess. I just hate the experience of it though :P

    The worst error was try to make a new game that is in competition, more or less, with the big 'names' like csgo, cod and so on. The brand AAO has nothing to do with that style of gameplay.
    Totally agree with you. I've found out AA2 after playing a lot of Quake 3 Arena and Medal of Honor. Immediately struggled with the idea of having to sit down after dying and not be able to rush like a speedy gonzales and jump everywhere. The game had a down to earth feeling even if we could agree that the rush animation was slow, if you were in a "run for your life" situation :)
    So people came to AA, to look for something different. Rougher around the edges, challenging, slower paced mind games, more teamplay since the individual is more fragile, etc. Along you felt you were connecting with the Army through knowledge passed onto you in training and gameplay experience, how to take a position in the field, cover your sector, report to teammates, rely on your teammates by not being a control freak, use objectives and time to force your opponent to make a mistake, etc, etc.

    AA2 saw a lot of competition (even I that dislike competition played TWL) and I wouldn't think for its time it was designed for competition or being ""popular"", at all. But built around core values they wanted to pass onto players, even through the frustration. (E and E anyone?)
    AA:PG seems to cater easy in some regards. The default game settings/standards, show you death messages, 2-3 revives, how many players on each team left.Run-Slide-Gun, sardine can maps. I mean... How much space is there for the game to grow and grow onto the players?
    After a week in AA2 I was frustrated with it and just wanted to quit. And after that week, it clicked and it was the best thing ever and stood with it for long. The story with PG is the other way around. You come in easy and you're bored after a while. I only stopped playing AA3 because I couldn't be bothered with feedback issues.

    So yeah I think it's alright to consider competition since it's a common reality today and not doing so can be bad, but I don't see why build around it. Should go back to those values and army standards and pass them through the gaming experience. Instead of wanting to be the next easy popular thing out there or comp-scene, let the players decide that, if they like it, they will push it for comp. But they can't touch the game core.

    Cheers
  • SOPMODSOPMOD Posts: 230Player
    SOPMOD wrote: »
    :D That edit Badabing. Dodged a bullet right there.

    If you can make people feel something is supernaturally good then you can't deny there's something to it. Right? :/ :D

    Huh? What edit/post?

    The one about jebus and "other" religous figures. It's been deleted apparently.
  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    edited May 2015
    SOPMOD wrote: »
    My point needs no defense if you look at where AAPG sits at this moment compared to where it started. It speaks for itself. At this pace the game needs another 6 years of BETA in order to attract a playerbase that even comes close to 10% of CS or LoL.

    10% of LoL this game or any PC FPS will never come close to that.

  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    edited May 2015
    SOPMOD wrote: »
    My point needs no defense if you look at where AAPG sits at this moment compared to where it started. It speaks for itself. At this pace the game needs another 6 years of BETA in order to attract a playerbase that even comes close to 10% of CS or LoL.
    10% of LoL this game or any PC FPS will never come close to that.
    Probably true.

    Right now, CSGO has about half the monthly hours of play that Dota 2 has. Meanwhile, as of last year at least, LoL was about 9 times larger than Dota 2. So... the biggest FPS out there is reaching 5%-10% of what LoL gets.

    I mean, League's had 7.5 million concurrent users. That's just a whole new scale. Comapre to baseball, where there's an estimated 11 million players in the USA, and then remember that the LoL number is a concurrent peak; I'd guess they could get over 50,000,000 unique users in a month (based on concurrent peak / unique ratio for other titles).

    Yeah, that's just crazy-huge.
  • SOPMODSOPMOD Posts: 230Player
    SOPMOD wrote: »
    My point needs no defense if you look at where AAPG sits at this moment compared to where it started. It speaks for itself. At this pace the game needs another 6 years of BETA in order to attract a playerbase that even comes close to 10% of CS or LoL.

    10% of LoL this game or any PC FPS will never come close to that.

    Well yes, i wasn't the one who brought it up, i'm the one saying you can't compare it with AAPG.
  • .dcG-Colts^.dcG-Colts^ Posts: 1,973Player
    SOPMOD wrote: »
    SOPMOD wrote: »
    My point needs no defense if you look at where AAPG sits at this moment compared to where it started. It speaks for itself. At this pace the game needs another 6 years of BETA in order to attract a playerbase that even comes close to 10% of CS or LoL.

    10% of LoL this game or any PC FPS will never come close to that.

    Well yes, i wasn't the one who brought it up, i'm the one saying you can't compare it with AAPG.

    So why talk about it.

  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    In this thread Sopmod delivers lol

    First you say 2 choke points is great

    Then you say this game should not be built with comp in mind.

    You also say AA tried something different and is a lot harder ..lol wow what

    so after all that you then wonder why we can't keep comp players in this game.. and continue saying we first need to make the game more fun and the comp will follow.

    You also get likes from players that don't have a clue

    .. keep up the good work ..
  • SSKnecaboSSKnecabo Posts: 2,721Player
    Welcome to the forums where people try to get u
    =IK=Doba= wrote: »
    In this thread Sopmod delivers lol

    First you say 2 choke points is great

    Then you say this game should not be built with comp in mind.

    You also say AA tried something different and is a lot harder ..lol wow what

    so after all that you then wonder why we can't keep comp players in this game.. and continue saying we first need to make the game more fun and the comp will follow.

    You also get likes from players that don't have a clue

    .. keep up the good work ..

    This forum in a nutshell. Almost missing Bam, anyone knows where he is?
  • =IK=Doba==IK=Doba= Posts: 2,789Player
    I don't think there is enough room for Bams opinions in here .. I feel him and sopmod will need a dance off
  • SOPMODSOPMOD Posts: 230Player
    edited May 2015
    SOPMOD wrote: »
    SOPMOD wrote: »
    My point needs no defense if you look at where AAPG sits at this moment compared to where it started. It speaks for itself. At this pace the game needs another 6 years of BETA in order to attract a playerbase that even comes close to 10% of CS or LoL.

    10% of LoL this game or any PC FPS will never come close to that.

    Well yes, i wasn't the one who brought it up, i'm the one saying you can't compare it with AAPG.

    So why talk about it.
    Because it was mentioned in a comment where i was quoted maybe? That's how conversations work....
    =IK=Doba= wrote: »
    In this thread Sopmod delivers lol

    First you say 2 choke points is great

    Then you say this game should not be built with comp in mind.

    You also say AA tried something different and is a lot harder ..lol wow what

    so after all that you then wonder why we can't keep comp players in this game.. and continue saying we first need to make the game more fun and the comp will follow.

    You also get likes from players that don't have a clue

    .. keep up the good work ..

    I think some people on the forum need comprehensive reading lessons, because i'm not going to explain everything word by word...
  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015
    =IK=Doba= wrote: »
    In this thread Sopmod delivers lol

    First you say 2 choke points is great

    Then you say this game should not be built with comp in mind.

    You also say AA tried something different and is a lot harder ..lol wow what

    so after all that you then wonder why we can't keep comp players in this game.. and continue saying we first need to make the game more fun and the comp will follow.

    You also get likes from players that don't have a clue

    .. keep up the good work ..

    No, it shouldn't be built around comp. It should be built around the army lore and pub, because that is where >80% of the players are. Pub feeds comp, not the other way around.
    When the players like the game and get more serious about it they end up looking for ways to experience it with more intensity so they turn to comp. But you first conquer them through out the game progression and their experience with pub gamming. Comp is a later experience to almost every comp player, not the first. Pubs is where you build communities. Comp is where those communities organize to go at each other.
    If you think comp is the ultimate experience, you're just proving that it shouldn't be built around it, though its nice if it leads smoothly to it.

    Game can't even keep pub players consistently. I can go weeks without playing it because I've found something more interesting to do. In AA2 I did a marathon of 22 hours playing it.

    And to finish up, I think comp mentality shifts the game to silly things. Request for unrealistic mechanics, lots of fudging, etc, usually things geared not to make a great game, but being able to dominate particular environments. And I don't see how is that good for the game's development. If you like he model of CS:GO, play it. If you like sterile high skilled comp environments, play Unreal Tournament 4, free Alpha now.
    I like AA2/AA3 and that's what I want to play here :) If the game ends up being great, comp will follow as it has before. And it's not like pub players are happy with it too...
  • SSKnecaboSSKnecabo Posts: 2,721Player
    =IK=Doba= wrote: »
    In this thread Sopmod delivers lol

    First you say 2 choke points is great

    Then you say this game should not be built with comp in mind.

    You also say AA tried something different and is a lot harder ..lol wow what

    so after all that you then wonder why we can't keep comp players in this game.. and continue saying we first need to make the game more fun and the comp will follow.

    You also get likes from players that don't have a clue

    .. keep up the good work ..

    No, it shouldn't be built around comp. It should be built around the army lore and pub, because that is where >80% of the players are. Pub feeds comp, not the other way around.
    When the players like the game and get more serious about it they end up looking for ways to experience it with more intensity so they turn to comp. But you first conquer them through out the game progression and their experience with pub gamming. Comp is a later experience to almost every comp player, not the first. Pubs is where you build communities. Comp is where those communities organize to go at each other.
    If you think comp is the ultimate experience, you're just proving that it shouldn't be built around it, though its nice if it leads smoothly to it.

    Game can't even keep pub players consistently. I can go weeks without playing it because I've found something more interesting to do. In AA2 I did a marathon of 22 hours playing it.

    And to finish up, I think comp mentality shifts the game to silly things. Request to make bodies disappear, remove bushes, etc, etc. usually things geared not to make a great game, but being able to dominate it. And I don't see how is that good for the game's development. If you like he model of CS:GO, play it. If you like sterile high skilled comp environments, play Unreal Tournament 4, free Alpha now.
    I like AA2/AA3 and that's what I want to play here :) If the game ends up being great, comp will follow and it's not like pub players are happy with it too...

    Was a good post until you said requesting disappearance of bodies is stupid. It was never requested that way, what was asked for is that you don't have to secure enemies anymore if they can't be revived anyway in order to pick up their weapon.
  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015
    I ended up editing minutes later because I didn't want people to pick up on small silly things instead of the body of the post, like you did. Sorry, wasn't fast enough for you.
  • SSKnecaboSSKnecabo Posts: 2,721Player
    edited May 2015
    Stop making up things and I wouldn't need to comment, easy as that. Oh, also comp will not follow if the game is good, comp will follow if the game grows big enough for someone to make a pro mod. Comp with grenade cooking, bushes and all that stuff just doesn't work out.
  • SacchoSaccho Posts: 1,577Player
    edited May 2015
    You're missing the concept behind many of the comp players' pushes for changes.

    The idea isn't "grow competition and the game grows with it". I agree that this is backwards.

    The idea is "gameplay that is capable of supporting competitive play is well-balanced and thus well-suited for play in general".
  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015
    cK^KILL@ wrote: »
    Stop making up things and I wouldn't need to comment, easy as that. Oh, also comp will not follow if the game is good, comp will follow if the game grows big enough for someone to make a pro mod. Comp with grenade cooking, bushes and all that stuff just doesn't work out.
    Like unbalanced team stacking? ahah. never happens. Keep focusing on your pet peeve details. I didn't come up with good examples, but the shift is real, it's just a matter of reading the threads here and the archived forum, on requests to "improve the game".

  • SSKnecaboSSKnecabo Posts: 2,721Player
    BCPull wrote: »
    You're missing the concept behind many of the comp players' pushes for changes.

    The idea isn't "grow competition and the game grows with it". I agree that this is backwards.

    The idea is "gameplay that is capable of supporting competitive play is well-balanced and thus well-suited for play in general".

    Sounds great in general, won't work for AA. Cooked grenades is the best example imo, belongs in the game for public, doesn't belong in any comp game.
  • ProceduralPolyMathProceduralPolyMath Posts: 96Player
    edited May 2015
    Fair enough BCPull, not all requests are like that and not all comp players think alike. And performance is something that should be there for everyone. Question is, if the performance is not there even for pubs you think the game will last?
    I said in another thread the other day. I stopped playing AA3 because I couldn't stand the feedback issues. I'm sure comp players were more vocal than me back then complaining about that, but no one was happy.

    The point I was doing of course was more targeting specific geared requests (fudging) and not core issues, like performance. There's no debate there.

    Cheers
Sign In or Register to comment.