安裝 Steam
登入
|
語言
簡體中文
日本語(日文)
한국어(韓文)
ไทย(泰文)
Български(保加利亞文)
Čeština(捷克文)
Dansk(丹麥文)
Deutsch(德文)
English(英文)
Español - España(西班牙文 - 西班牙)
Español - Latinoamérica(西班牙文 - 拉丁美洲)
Ελληνικά(希臘文)
Français(法文)
Italiano(義大利文)
Bahasa Indonesia(印尼語)
Magyar(匈牙利文)
Nederlands(荷蘭文)
Norsk(挪威文)
Polski(波蘭文)
Português(葡萄牙文 - 葡萄牙)
Português - Brasil(葡萄牙文 - 巴西)
Română(羅馬尼亞文)
Русский(俄文)
Suomi(芬蘭文)
Svenska(瑞典文)
Türkçe(土耳其文)
tiếng Việt(越南文)
Українська(烏克蘭文)
回報翻譯問題
so yes, as long as there are tactics :) I agree with your post, however, I'd say this game is in between arcady games and heavily tactical games.
The only way to fix this is to overhaul the game itself to become more team/squad centerd like Post Scriptum, Hell Let Loose, Squad. And that won't happen.
This is just how the game, or the series, is designed to be. An arcade shooter with WW1 visuals in which running and gunning is one of the best ways to play.
You're right, but "B first" is the only tactic that works without in-depth team play. If the players communicated a little, other tactical perspectives could be explored, for sure.
I have to admit I don't understand the point for developers of staying in the middle. This game will lose regular players who want, over time, a little bit more than a WW1 arcade shooter while it won't be able to keep casual players who prefer, in any case, AAA games. When you have as few players as Isonzo, I think you have to make sure you retain the players who keep the game going.
I play hell let loose too. It can be real annoying when the other team are coordinating tanks + artillery + commander. Then your team just isnt...
you've already lost, nothing you can do but hope you get put on the other team next time. Even if you are on the coordinated team, the win still wasnt really down to you.
I get the appeal but its not for me.
teamplay in isonzo revolves around the spuad spawn system. Always be considering your squads spawn situation.
Teamplay is secondary in Isonzo? I thought it had built in VOIP and squads that moved around with you. That's not the case? I've been playing Squad since it came out and also put a little time into Verdun and Tannenburg but if its just another headless chicken zerg rush game set in WW1 its probably not going to appeal to me. I was thinking about buying the whole Isonzo package this evening but only 40 people on steamcharts seems disappointing to say the least for $75.
Squads are normally not coordinated either. The only benefit from them is the spawns they provide, otherwise nobody tries to be tactical in a squad.
As said, people don't care about teamplay because it is not a hard requirement.
With friends, or a dedicated group, all the above, of course, does not apply, but, in general, that's how it is. Teamplay is minimal, no coordination and communication
That's disappointing. Especially since all the framework is there what with the squads and the built in VOIP. The game looks amazing but I don't think I can justify spending $75 for the game and all the DLC's especially when theres typically only around 40-50 playing during the evenings.
That's exactly the kind of game i like to play, between simulation and arcade. I have 2000hrs in Red orchestra 2/Rising Storm so you can play that kind of game for a long time and keep a player base. And i've never played AAA games in FPS, though 2hrs game long in Post Scriptum or Hell let loose are not my thing and they usually lack some ambience or scenery.
It's nice to see a middle ground.