Jump to content

Photo

Closed Beta - Feedback


  • Please log in to reply
75 replies to this topic

#61
Zero Spiral

Zero Spiral
  • 77 posts

Steamrolling...the most disgusting play style because both sides get little amount of exp.


  • 0

#62
Con

Con
  • 4,023 posts

Thanks for taking part guys and gals. PLEASE fill out this survey to get your opinions of the beta out to us: http://bit.ly/WOBetaSurvey



#63
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts
Sorry if I left excessively long comments on the form, I just wanted to clarify my opinion more than the rating systems allow.
  • 0

#64
Con

Con
  • 4,023 posts

Sorry if I left excessively long comments on the form, I just wanted to clarify my opinion more than the rating systems allow.

 

All good, finding the comments really helpful. It's interesting and different feedback than we'd get from a forum. 



#65
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

All good, finding the comments really helpful. It's interesting and different feedback than we'd get from a forum. 

I'd love to give more in depth feedback on the current state of the game, but posting on the forums really does make me sound like a negative person who hates the game (just want to point out out of balance aspects and fix them).

 

One of the things I find you do perfectly is how you can draw the line in the right place between F2P and paying players, allowing F2P players to play unhampered and allow paying ones to accelerate their progress.

 

I'd love to talk more about the game on Steam (sent a req).


  • 0

#66
przybysz86

przybysz86
  • 9 posts

I'd love to give more in depth feedback on the current state of the game, but posting on the forums really does make me sound like a negative person who hates the game (just want to point out out of balance aspects and fix them).

well - feedback like "game is perfect" is nice to hear from dev's perspective but really do not bring anything useful.

Giving it some more thought:
I like the idea of random assets, etc but they seem all little too strong. I mean no matter what tactic you use if you get lucky and you get assets that allow you to spam 2xT90, BTR and 2-3xGAZ in short succession + usual infantry afterwards ... well - 95% of time not much enemy can do.

I do not say game was totally imbalanced but it was leaning too much on being lucky and not on being good tactician. Maybe it's just me with my strategy game background but that's how I felt it.
To not sound negative - game is great. I loved previous browse-based versions and this one definitely is well deserved successor.
 


  • 0

#67
Con

Con
  • 4,023 posts

well - feedback like "game is perfect" is nice to hear from dev's perspective but really do not bring anything useful.

Giving it some more thought:
I like the idea of random assets, etc but they seem all little too strong. I mean no matter what tactic you use if you get lucky and you get assets that allow you to spam 2xT90, BTR and 2-3xGAZ in short succession + usual infantry afterwards ... well - 95% of time not much enemy can do.

I do not say game was totally imbalanced but it was leaning too much on being lucky and not on being good tactician. Maybe it's just me with my strategy game background but that's how I felt it.
To not sound negative - game is great. I loved previous browse-based versions and this one definitely is well deserved successor.
 

 

Totally understand where you're coming from, but luck is part of the design.The thing is you can structure your luck a little with your selections of assets. The game is designed to reward preparation more than skill. 

 

With those specific examples, I've been contemplating ways to make defensive / control decks stronger to counter rushes like that. There might be some pretty dramatic changes to some of the supports that act defensively.



#68
geras

geras
  • 23 posts


Giving it some more thought:
I like the idea of random assets, etc but they seem all little too strong. I mean no matter what tactic you use if you get lucky and you get assets that allow you to spam 2xT90, BTR and 2-3xGAZ in short succession + usual infantry afterwards ... well - 95% of time not much enemy can do.
 

 

I've won against 6 or 7 tanks, 4 LAVs and 6 jeeps in one match so it's definetely doable :)


  • 0

#69
passing player

passing player
  • 440 posts

I've won against 6 or 7 tanks, 4 LAVs and 6 jeeps in one match so it's definitely doable :)

I had 5+ vehicles on the map once and I neutralized them with a well-placed Naval Support and Artillery Strike.

(I got 2 Supply Boosts on my hand, lucky?)


Edited by passing player, 22 December 2016 - 10:13 PM.

  • 0

#70
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

Totally understand where you're coming from, but luck is part of the design.The thing is you can structure your luck a little with your selections of assets. The game is designed to reward preparation more than skill. 
 
With those specific examples, I've been contemplating ways to make defensive / control decks stronger to counter rushes like that. There might be some pretty dramatic changes to some of the supports that act defensively.


Yeah, def needs rework to make defensive cards more viable.

To avoid having to pray to RNGesua, I just loaded up with fire support sonce it's a consistent tactic unlike defensive assets.
  • 0

#71
Willisjenkins

Willisjenkins
  • 3 posts

Will this game be able to be browser based in webgl?


  • 0

#72
A Real Renegade

A Real Renegade
  • 486 posts

Will this game be able to be browser based in webgl?

Obviously not considering it has already been released as a game that will be soldon Steam built on the Unity engine.


  • 0

#73
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

Will this game be able to be browser based in webgl?

Steam is a lot easier to use than browser from a dev standpoint.

 

Payment support is handled by steam, you can build a game without the limitations of browser that is more optimized than a browser game.

 

Basically, building a game on steam rectifies some of the biggest issues that TLS:DZ had. Great game, but was prone to not working very well on some peoples' computers.


  • 0

#74
Con

Con
  • 4,023 posts

Will this game be able to be browser based in webgl?

 

As the others have said, we're launching on Steam.

 

No plans to have the game outside of that environment at the moment mostly because of the payment systems. We've had to build a significant back end system as it is and doing payments as well is a big / expensive / risky thing. 



#75
Fur Dozy

Fur Dozy
  • 25 posts

I Do hope that consideration is taken as far as making more play styles relevant opposed nerfing existing play styles to oblivion. I made some of the best rush and supply decks that I had seen and I think that the following would do well to balance the game:

 

-A few more defensive options. Such as a multi-charge mine or defensive turret(that probably a lot of work to code in). Things that help players that are worried their platoon will get rushed, but will not contribute in an aggressive manner.

 

-I did have a deck that revolved around using two naval strikes and an artillery to level the other hq in less than a minute. The naval is the only card that does so much damage to the hq. I suggest that it should be a gold card, limiting the number of uses to 1 per game.

 

-There should certainly be some sort of MM consideration for decks that have more high cost cards. many rushes can be countered well with some good high level cards, but can be hard to fight with a deck consisting of cards attained from a few(lets say 40) hours of grinding in game. If Win/Loss is taken into account that might help in a loosely related way. I think a better way might be to base MM off of the cards and upgrades that a player in using at the time they queue up.

 

The satisfaction you get from making a great deck is one of the more rewarding aspects of the game and it should remain that way. Also, when you have two good decks that go up against each other, those battles are very enjoyable. I look forward to continuing to give feedback on the game and how it might be improved. 


  • 0

#76
MW3ProPiper

MW3ProPiper
  • 792 posts

I Do hope that consideration is taken as far as making more play styles relevant opposed nerfing existing play styles to oblivion. I made some of the best rush and supply decks that I had seen and I think that the following would do well to balance the game:

 

-A few more defensive options. Such as a multi-charge mine or defensive turret(that probably a lot of work to code in). Things that help players that are worried their platoon will get rushed, but will not contribute in an aggressive manner.

 

-I did have a deck that revolved around using two naval strikes and an artillery to level the other hq in less than a minute. The naval is the only card that does so much damage to the hq. I suggest that it should be a gold card, limiting the number of uses to 1 per game.

 

-There should certainly be some sort of MM consideration for decks that have more high cost cards. many rushes can be countered well with some good high level cards, but can be hard to fight with a deck consisting of cards attained from a few(lets say 40) hours of grinding in game. If Win/Loss is taken into account that might help in a loosely related way. I think a better way might be to base MM off of the cards and upgrades that a player in using at the time they queue up.

 

The satisfaction you get from making a great deck is one of the more rewarding aspects of the game and it should remain that way. Also, when you have two good decks that go up against each other, those battles are very enjoyable. I look forward to continuing to give feedback on the game and how it might be improved. 

High cost cards, are you referring to cards that cost a lot to craft (like "gold" ones) or ones that cost a lot to deploy (naval strike at 8 supply)?

 

I personally don't think the naval strike is that OP (then again, i have not used it since it was buffed with more support range), since it is rather situational due to the exorbitant cost of using it.

 

As for the defensive options, definitely. Since there's only so much cover for you to stack your troops on before having to push.

 

Maybe perhaps Battle Gear style with base guards, turrets, and towers? (Check out Battle Gear, fun game).


  • 0