Jump to content

Photo

Closed Beta - Feedback


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#21
Zero Spiral

Zero Spiral
  • 77 posts

Some players on steam asked about how to counter the SVK troops. Con himself suggested some counter measures against and already made some adjustment to SVK. Unfortunately, the problem is not the gun itself. 

For Russian platoon, their equipments unlock sequence is very different from the US. For an unknown reason, the gear Ranger kit belongs to tier 2 and the skill Scout Training belongs to tier 3. On the other hand, in US unlocks, it is tier 6 and tier 4 respectively. Of course, there are units that can counter this such as humvees and armored vehicle. Support assets like mortar strikes or other fire support can also do the work. These options take times to deploy and limited which is crucial to the tide of the battle. Specfically saying, riflemen have 10 while support and vehicles have only single digit. With the kit and skill equipped, it essentially makes riflemen to a sniper unit of five.

This huge tier margin can make a great strategic advantage for the Russian over the US since those two can only be unlocked at the very late stage. Therefore, it is not the problem of the gun itself, but rather the difference between two unlock sequences. If it were to be balanced, I think both US and Russian platoon should have at least a similar unlock pattern so that both platoons can counter each other more effectively. Or the kit and skill could greater negative effects on number or deploying timer. For those who chose Russian platoon in beta reading it, I hope you all do not take offence of this as this is just an idea. Whether it would be taken is up to Con and his fellow devs. Still, if it stays the same when full release, more people might prefer Russian over the US.


Edited by Max, 04 December 2016 - 05:15 AM.

  • 0

#22
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

Some feedback:

Underpowered/expensive no niche offensive assets:

- Naval barrage: for 8 supply, it really isn't worth it since you could buy 2+ cheaper assets for more use. Buff effect or make cheaper.

- Guided AT missile (guy with aiming laser as picture): This thing ia very powerful when it hits the enemy, I've managed to smash plenty of enemy armor with it, but other assets with bigger radius could do the same. I say reduce the cost to 4 or 3, or make it come down significantly faster after it is called.

- Repair drop should work more efficiently, right now, not fast enough compared to how fast enemy can spit out offensive assets. Increase cost to 3 if needed for balance.

Infantry niches:

- Similar to DZ, LMG teams need a suppression mechanic (anybody except snipers do tbh) because the only defensive unit to anchor your team is snipers atm. New maps may give them a niche.

- Assault should be able to have less penalty for being in the open, new maps may actually give a reason to run assaults.

- AT team is not strong enough as a counter, this is the main thing that NEEDs a look at. When enemy armor starts shelling your base, you often can't wait for your own armor, so you spam AT troops to deal with the problem.

Tanks should be strong, so I just propose making AT a 3 man team, especially to force infantry to support the armor.

Also, the AT animation is wonky, after firing a rocket, they reload, throw the launcher aside, draw the gun, and then put the gun aside to pull out the launcher.

I say just increase the reload time to keep overall RoF the same, but allow the rocket to be aimed after the reload, not thrown aside and swapped to again.

Gun Inaccuracies:

- SCAR-H: completely inaccurate to how it should perform, needs a massive damage
reduction, "+60% APS" as description, and fire at 33.3 aps, or 1998 rpm. /s

 

Premium Membership: This is just not worth it; the price is reasonable compared to other games' memberships, but the membership bonuses are not at all worth.

 

Credits: at the current economy, these are only used to purchase unlocks, you already have abundant creds, no need to spend money to boost your earn rate.

 

XP: Guess this is only worth it if you are impatient, otherwise no.

 

I'd make it possible to buy munitions or supply crates straight up with creds (even if like 5k creds per crate) so that there is a reason for buying a premium membership.

 

EDIT: recent update, I noticed how the mounted MG fires faster, the rapid armor supply (remove cooldown on armor asset) was moved up to a cost of 8.


Edited by MW3ProPiper, 06 December 2016 - 02:43 AM.

  • 0

#23
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts
Seems like .04 and .05 changed a lot of what I asked in my prev post.
  • 0

#24
przybysz86

przybysz86
  • 9 posts

My feedback: premium operational assets give too much boost or match making sucks.

Since there are little players at some time I had lot of cases when I had match after match vs the same guy. Problem is that I've been matche3d up with guy that have much better units than mine: faster, hitting at greater range and with much better accuracy. Not sure if that's just because he had better upgrades installed or if he got better operational assets (guy had something that made his units faster and better at long range - not sure how powerful are those).

I've tried everything and I am big enough man to admit I did some poor decision here and there but when you see single tank rolling and killing my infantry at over twice the range I can shoot at and he can chew through 4 AT squads in 10s regardless if they are behind light, heavy or no cover then there is something wrong. At one battle I've used 1 tank, 4 AT and 2 assaults vs 1 T90 .. yes, that's it - one singe tank no, infantry, no support. Mine team was able to shoot 1(one!) rocket and that's it. Most died way before being able to shoot.
And it's not like he used some abilities that locked guns on my M1 or anything. My tank was just killed way before it got in range of it's own weapon.

As said - not sure if those "superpowers" came from his operational assets or from his tank being much more upgraded. It's a problem and after 5 battles I started to close game whenever I saw I was match vs this particular guy.
Do something about it or people will rage-quit as I do.

What is also a possibility that game match based on how many improvements you have researched for your units. Problem is that without a premium account I can only unlock 20-30% of them. Game seem great and I do not know what is the business model but please do not make it pay to win - it will seriously limit player-base and at least in my case will mean I would sadly have to stop plying.

I have no problem paying for game I like to say get quicker progress but I hate games where paying give me higher chance to win vs other guys because there is always someone with more money to spend. But I guess that's the cancer with all mobile games these days and it seem to "leak" into PC multiplier games as well.


  • -1

#25
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

The M2 Abrams tank has a bug with the attachments after the recent update; Assault config puts an M240 on my Abrams (should be M2HB). Scout config doesn't put an M240 on it like it should.


  • 0

#26
Con

Con
  • 4,023 posts

My feedback: premium operational assets give too much boost or match making sucks.

Since there are little players at some time I had lot of cases when I had match after match vs the same guy. Problem is that I've been matche3d up with guy that have much better units than mine: faster, hitting at greater range and with much better accuracy. Not sure if that's just because he had better upgrades installed or if he got better operational assets (guy had something that made his units faster and better at long range - not sure how powerful are those).

 

What you're seeing in this closed beta is a very condensed version of what the game will be like. Progression is faster so people are accessing stuff quicker. On top of that there's only a few hundred active players in the beta, so you're going to run into players at all levels. 

 

Matchmaking in the live game will be based on a lifetime MMR. New players won't have to worry about running into people who are deeper into the unlocks, opened more boxes etc. 

 

Edit: I just played a game against someone who had 3 very well configured Operations cards, unlocks active for all his units. I stomped him in about 5 mins with the RUS Basic platoon. No ops, no unlocks. There is a skill element to this game, having stuff doesn't make you better necessarily. The situation you described sounds rough, but there are ways to play around it. Throwing units at an enemy isn't always the way.



#27
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

What about implementing a trading/marketplace system instead/supplement of just outright buying supports/ops?


  • 0

#28
przybysz86

przybysz86
  • 9 posts

What you're seeing in this closed beta is a very condensed version of what the game will be like. Progression is faster so people are accessing stuff quicker. On top of that there's only a few hundred active players in the beta, so you're going to run into players at all levels. 

 

Matchmaking in the live game will be based on a lifetime MMR. New players won't have to worry about running into people who are deeper into the unlocks, opened more boxes etc. 

 

Edit: I just played a game against someone who had 3 very well configured Operations cards, unlocks active for all his units. I stomped him in about 5 mins with the RUS Basic platoon. No ops, no unlocks. There is a skill element to this game, having stuff doesn't make you better necessarily. The situation you described sounds rough, but there are ways to play around it. Throwing units at an enemy isn't always the way.

oh don't get me wrong. As I said in my post - I admit I did lot of things wrong. I did bad and he did well. Still if a bad inexperienced guy like me is matched with a good player that on the top of that have all the updates ... let's say it's discouraging*. If that's just because close beta have small player-base I totally understand that but in future it should not happen.

I just wanted to voice my concern early one - I leave it up to you to decide if it makes sens or was just bad luck on my end :)

*EDIT:
I mean that if I loose I'd like to know I lost because of my skill not because of having worse troop .. despite the fact that my lack of skill is main reason of my defeat :)


Edited by przybysz86, 09 December 2016 - 10:37 PM.

  • 0

#29
Con

Con
  • 4,023 posts

oh don't get me wrong. As I said in my post - I admit I did lot of things wrong. I did bad and he did well. Still if a bad inexperienced guy like me is matched with a good player that on the top of that have all the updates ... let's say it's discouraging. If that's just because close beta have small player-base I totally understand that but in future it should not happen.

I just wanted to voice my concern early one - I leave it up to you to decide if it makes sens or was just bad luck on my end :)

 

Yeah, it's 100% because it's beta. We only have around 30 people online at any given time. Some of them have played close to 100 hours since the beta launched, so you're probably running into them. 

 

It's a common problem with these sorts of games, the good thing is it's an easy problem to solve when we have more players. 



#30
Cataclysm

Cataclysm
  • 2 posts

Couple more notes after a bit more gameplay:

1. Seems like every game I've played so far has come down to both sides running out of stuff. The other guy autowins because the other guy is all out of stuff. Just an observation. I really haven't seen any early push strats work too well because both sides just make snipers and sit in the back with entrenched rifles and ATs.  Artillery is very nice for killing guys behind AVs but for digging out entrenched guys it's less effective.

 

2. MGs kinda feel like shorter range snipers. They still kinda feel the same as rifles defensively. They're a bit more resistant to barrages but that's it.

 

3. An option to run to cover would be nice. Increased damage vulnerability during the run to compensate maybe? Right now attacking really feels like an uphill battle because they have cover and your guys just sit there in the open.

 

4. ATs seem to be absolutely mandatory. Again, sample size of one here so maybe it's just my playstyle. But I personally find that you can get away with swapping out most units as you see fit. Obviously your platoon might not be optimal but you can still win with it. However, I can't imagine how I would possibly win without ATs other than cheating them in with support cards.

 

5. One last note: When warfare online gets released, someone will probably datamine the numbers. I know you said earlier that not including numbers was a design decision, but coming back from the warframe community has really made me realize how dedicated some people can be when it comes to getting to the bottom of things. Somewhere, the numbers behind everything will get published somehow. Just wanted to remind you about that.


  • 0

#31
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

Cataclysm, I agree with your "early rush strat ineffectiveness"

 

Recent updates nerfed snipers, so now just pile on the riflemen; snipers can actually get rushed and taken out now.

 

I find AT teams to be a hit or miss; can be supremely fast in taking down armor, or supremely fast in being gunned down.

 

I personally run vehicles (IFV  and MBT) with AP rounds as counters to enemy vehicles.


  • 0

#32
Con

Con
  • 4,023 posts

Couple more notes after a bit more gameplay:

1. Seems like every game I've played so far has come down to both sides running out of stuff. The other guy autowins because the other guy is all out of stuff. Just an observation. I really haven't seen any early push strats work too well because both sides just make snipers and sit in the back with entrenched rifles and ATs.  Artillery is very nice for killing guys behind AVs but for digging out entrenched guys it's less effective.

 

Both sides running out of stuff is something we're seeing as well, especially with newer players:

 

- The basic platoons are not very "swingy" they don't have big moment supports in them, so there's not much to move the line around

- Alpine as a map is very long, so you end up with lots of time to prepare between momentum shifts

- Early pushes can be done, again just need the right combination of supports

 

As for AT's being mandatory, your options open up with more supports. There's AT specific mortars and Artillery barrages, AT mines also do just fine. Anti-vehicle kits are available on a bunch of the other Units as well. Aaaaand there's also the option to put AT's in your Support list as Support Units.



#33
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

As for AT's being mandatory, your options open up with more supports. There's AT specific mortars and Artillery barrages, AT mines also do just fine. Anti-vehicle kits are available on a bunch of the other Units as well. Aaaaand there's also the option to put AT's in your Support list as Support Units.

 

I haven't tried the AT mortar and artillery; are they good against infantry as well? Albeit at a higher cost.

 

For my personal platoon, I'd say the higher cost is justified by having a versatile attack that can engage armor and infantry versus just regular mortars that can't scratch armor.


Edited by MW3ProPiper, 10 December 2016 - 12:23 PM.

  • 0

#34
przybysz86

przybysz86
  • 9 posts

I now that game is about offensive only but I wish there was option to pull back. It would open whole new dimension of deep defensive.


  • 0

#35
przybysz86

przybysz86
  • 9 posts

in the 2nd to last cover (nearest medium cover to base the one that is solo in the middle) there seem to be problem with path-finding for vehicles:
If cover is destroyed tank/LAV/jeep can ride straight without having to go to the side but it still wait for sides to be clear. So if my infantry is fighting on the sides my vehicle will just stay in the back and do nothing. He can drive via mid but he seem not to know it. As soon as any of the side routes clear he proceed and drive via middle part.

I think similar is true for medium cover in the  middle of the map. When it's destroyed and middle is blocked vehicle will just stall despite the fact it can go via side nicely.


  • 0

#36
przybysz86

przybysz86
  • 9 posts

Another annoying moment. Enemy is at my base, I spawn a unit and before it starts to shoot it have to run for 10-15m to stant 5m from enemy and only then start aiming despite the fact they are in range from the very beginning. In the meantime enemy is shooting at my unit as soon as they spawn on the very edge of map and for example in case of tank before it even shoots 1 round it's destroyed by 1-2 AT squads or in case of infantry, before they stop to shoot half of them are dead and those alive have a grenade under their feet and the moment they stop to shoot they are dead. 

If that is the idea to make spawning new units pointless as soon as enemy reaches last cover then fine but if not - it's a room for improvement.


  • 0

#37
Ted Striker

Ted Striker
  • 6 posts

Some feedback:

 

Unit targeting is often wrong when relying on the AI. Unless I missed how to, there needs to be a way to designate a target for a particular unit, independent of support assets.

 

Here's an example why (ignore the visible units. It's someone's youtube video I'm using for a screenshot as I can't find a blank one. I labeled with text what was actually going on.) Opponent sends out a rifleman as his first unit, I send out MG as mine, and they both take cover at the top of the screen where indicated. I send another MG to take bottom cover, he sends a sniper to take cover below his riflemen. I send a sniper to counter his. Mine has the range unlock so I know he can counter it.

 

4aKSsKZ.jpg

 

His sniper starts firing at my MG up top while my sniper moves into position. What does my sniper do? Fires at the riflemen who aren't doing anything instead of the enemy sniper slowly picking off my MG team. Now at this point I'm just perplexed so I choose to not send any more units or use support. I want to see what happens. I want to see how long it takes for the AI to wise up and have my sniper target the enemy sniper causing casualties instead of the riflemen sitting there doing nothing.

 

It never does. The enemy sniper finishes off that MG, then takes out the other MG, then the riflemen move in and quickly dispatch my sniper. Like I said I wasn't sending more units or using support at this point because I wanted to see the outcome of this strange conflict. It's beta, I'm not interested in the win I want to uncover problems. I could have used mortar or artillery strike so I could have altered the outcome that way if I wanted to, but the point is my sniper targeted the wrong unit, and it's not the first time something like that has happened.

 

We need a way to click a friendly unit then an enemy unit to target it. Support units that mark enemies as Targeted are something else.

 

At the least, there should be a built-in priority for targets. Snipers should target enemy snipers first, then MGs, then Riflemen, Assault or AT.

 

Again, if there's a way to choose targets then I missed it and I'm an idiot. It took a while just to figure out what clicking cover did - I thought I was sending units to that cover and wondering why sometimes my unit would move past it.


Edited by Ted Striker, 14 December 2016 - 12:06 AM.

  • 0

#38
Con

Con
  • 4,023 posts

I want direct control over targets. 

 

There isn't a way to do that, it's very much a purposeful design decision.

 

We're working on the AI target acquisition. At the moment, infantry don't differentiate between different infantry. 



#39
Ted Striker

Ted Striker
  • 6 posts

There isn't a way to do that, it's very much a purposeful design decision.

 

We're working on the AI target acquisition. At the moment, infantry don't differentiate between different infantry. 

 

Well yeah I figured that may be intentional, that's why I mentioned priority targets later on because they seem to just pick targets at random in the beta. That's fine when it's all riflemen and assault on the map but when you need snipers to take out enemy snipers or a MG team blocking your path you depend on them to do their job.


It can and probably will cause problems though. Let's say target acquisition has changed so that snipers go after enemy snipers in range first, then MGs when no snipers are in range. You can actually use your own snipers as bait for enemy snipers, giving them +cover unlocks and whatnot and drawing their fire so your MG survives to take out the incoming assault team. That's just an example. It's still better than seemingly random target acquisition but it can and will be exploited once we figure out how it works. That's the nature of us gamers :) If the AI can be exploited it will be exploited. I think that's rule #1 for gamers.

 

(and just btw, I had way more fun in this beta than I expected. The game is really simple on the outside but wow it has some serious strategic and tactical elements I didn't expect, almost like a collectible card game crossed with a MOBA.)


Edited by Con, 14 December 2016 - 03:17 AM.

  • 0

#40
passing player

passing player
  • 440 posts

Just fought MW3 an hour ago.

 

it seems that the "enemy troop target outpost and ignore your troops" is gone.

and now none of my defenses stand a chance because they stand out in the air, not running for the cover 3 feet away and get mow'd down.

(just saying)


  • 0