Why so many hate?

[Satan Itself]

I wonder why is there so many negative feedback on this game concept (let's say that since is not the full game yer) specially from RD players. What kind of comparison are people making? what are the real arguments?

So far I feel the game has a lot of potential and I am expectant to see the campaigns and other countries being added. Until they don't, it is quite obvious that RD has more to offer (content-wise).

I payed for the game as a way to support its development and I find quite unfair all the unreasonable hate. I really want to know what are the real arguments behind, I am playing both games (RD in singleplayer campaigns, got bored of MP already) and so far I believe the mechanic mixture between RD and SD is going good, of course it requires more polishing.

[LyranWingedHussar]

BlackFoxSamaki の投稿を引用：

Sokol の投稿を引用：

I second that they are trying to be as cheap as possible with this game.
If you recall when SD2 first came out, Eugen completely abandoned SD44 to work on SD2.

With WARNO being released for about a year now, though in early access, Eugen still devotes resources to SD2, with updates and content releases. They are trying to work on WARNO with as little time and money used as possible, and obviously that is killing the game.

Plus it's slowing down the already slow development on SD2 which is antagonizing the SD crowd so I don't think they are going to be very enthusiastic about switching to WARNO. Like someone mentioned earlier, who the heck is WARNO made for? Eugen split their playerbase into two different camps when they released the SD series and WARNO doesn't appeal to either playerbase.

I played Red Dragon, still play it and I play SD2. I bought Warno to support the game devs because I had extra cash. I'm not happy with my choice. I'm pretty annoyed that SD2 development has been slowed to a crawl and Eugen keeps lifting NDA way early to build hype then take 3+ months to release the DLC.
I wanted Italy for RD I thought that the release of South Africa meant more good things on the way for RD.
I dont expect Warno to be a RD clone but its definitely disappointed me and I wont be buying any future DLC for it the Eugen might release if they get out of EA, which seems unlikely.

[[MCS] Yoritomo]

Simple answer:
If a game is good and meet the expectations, the people just play it. If a developer breaks promise or the game is stuck in a unfinished shape, the people complain at the message boards.

[Rabidnid]

MCS Yoritomo の投稿を引用：

Simple answer:
If a game is good and meet the expectations, the people just play it. If a developer breaks promise or the game is stuck in a unfinished shape, the people complain at the message boards.

90% of the Red Dragon player base play 50k straight to the point 10v10s. You can't do that with WARNO so they think it is bad.

People who want a 1989 RTS set in Germany on the other hand are ecstatic about WARNO.
The division system and the much narrower time period are doing for WARNO what it did for SD2, allowing a lot of niche divisions that are practical if not OP.

The much better AI also means that people don't have to deal with the cesspool that is the Eugen PvP game player base.

[Stenly96]

I think that this is primarily due to the "huge" amount of content.

There is very little of it.
Few maps, and one of those that are, forest-fields, forest-fields, which we have already seen in each of the previous games developed.

I don't believe there are no cities in Germany

In general, there are few innovations.
Since the release of Europe, I've been waiting for additional support "from outside".
But in the end, we see in each etteration just a reskin.
Yes, the graphics are gorgeous, the sounds are cool, but damn it, it's not 2007, we're not playing Crysis :D

[Pizzamovies]

Because the multiplayer aspect is a gamey toxic cesspool.

10v10 is nothing but static trench warfare where people spam Artillery, and theres an ATGM hiding behind every blade of grass. Eventually players get pissed and leave, causing the AI to take over. This leads to either the AI abandoning capture zones, or rushing their units to get instantly vaporized. Then the other team has free reign to roll up one flank like a carpet, and congrats youve wasted 40mins of your life.

4v4 and 2v2 isnt much better as the tactics are still the same with zero emphasis on combined arms tatctical movements and engagements. 90% of this game is playing recon peek a boo and using Arty to kill the enemies Anti-Tank units so you can push without losing several hundred points. Thats the game, blow up the enemies cover with artillery and then slowly creep up like its 1914 again.

Smoke is useless as it doesnt last long enough to take advantage of and is a great way to alert the enemy to your plans. Infantry ATGMs make supporting with IFVs and APCs suicidal. Tanks 9/10 deploy smoke at the worst times unless your babysitting them every nanosecond and do it manually. Counter battery is mostly worthless as well and either misses or doesn't kill anything. Aircraft are situational and they either massivley under perform or are angels from god. SAMS and AA is also hit or miss, ive watched Chaparrals miss all 4 shots and then get wiped out by return fire, or Hinds brush off multiple Stingers and lazily spin away to repair and come back, or slow A-10s glide over the enemy and watch multiple missiles from SA-Whatever launch and achieve nothing.

There is also 0 communication in games, no tactics whatsoever. Public chat is dead as a cinderblock. At least Red Dragons chat was alive and you could have a laugh as you wait in the lobby simulator. This game no one talks at all, and the few times you run into a player who actually wants to communicate, everyone ignores them.

The Skirmish is lackluster. Easy and Medium AI dont deploy properly or utilize counters. Hard AI becomes too predictable, and anything above that just cheats to give the impression of difficulty. Friendly AI is a liability, especially in Destruction.

I could go on and on, about the model assets, how the French hold the Famas by the barrel instead of the actual handgrip, or 9/10 soviet special forces being basically shirtless and wearing adidas track shoes. Or the lack of 50cal HMMWVs for infantry transports, or no Soviet T72s. But you get the idea.

>Before the inevitable "But its early access"

[[R]uammitr®]

No update

[ArmedGhost-]

Satan Itself の投稿を引用：

I wonder why is there so many negative feedback on this game concept (let's say that since is not the full game yer) specially from RD players. What kind of comparison are people making? what are the real arguments?

So far I feel the game has a lot of potential and I am expectant to see the campaigns and other countries being added. Until they don't, it is quite obvious that RD has more to offer (content-wise).

I payed for the game as a way to support its development and I find quite unfair all the unreasonable hate. I really want to know what are the real arguments behind, I am playing both games (RD in singleplayer campaigns, got bored of MP already) and so far I believe the mechanic mixture between RD and SD is going good, of course it requires more polishing.

From my experience, the gaming community spreads negativity and hate no matter what developers or a studio does with their. People complain and grief games when they don't fit their entitled consumer outline.

There's not one game that I currently play (Including Warno) where there isn't negativity and hate being spread throughout the community.

It's fairly annoying, but that just seems to be how gamers are today, entitled whiners who complain about anything they can. Instead of dissatisfied players moving on and finding something else to play, they instead stick around and grief players who enjoy the game and be hateful towards developers.

[Rabidnid]

LethalDiabetic- の投稿を引用：

Satan Itself の投稿を引用：

I wonder why is there so many negative feedback on this game concept (let's say that since is not the full game yer) specially from RD players. What kind of comparison are people making? what are the real arguments?

So far I feel the game has a lot of potential and I am expectant to see the campaigns and other countries being added. Until they don't, it is quite obvious that RD has more to offer (content-wise).

I payed for the game as a way to support its development and I find quite unfair all the unreasonable hate. I really want to know what are the real arguments behind, I am playing both games (RD in singleplayer campaigns, got bored of MP already) and so far I believe the mechanic mixture between RD and SD is going good, of course it requires more polishing.

From my experience, the gaming community spreads negativity and hate no matter what developers or a studio does with their. People complain and grief games when they don't fit their entitled consumer outline.

There's not one game that I currently play (Including Warno) where there isn't negativity and hate being spread throughout the community.

It's fairly annoying, but that just seems to be how gamers are today, entitled whiners who complain about anything they can. Instead of dissatisfied players moving on and finding something else to play, they instead stick around and grief players who enjoy the game and be hateful towards developers.

Pretty much. I bought it and played it on release day and thought, "OK... this can get uninstalled for another year".

I have just reinstalled and played about 150 hours, fabulous game and love it to bits, still a little too much Red Dragon in it but very nice indeed. It is of course lacking content and I am now mostly playing other things but will come back when the next update drops.

Being some juvenile that expects the game developers to match their expectations and whining when they don't is some remarkably entitled ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥.

[mgla1985]

mndbsd の投稿を引用：

the game is plagued by unfun mechanics

they bring realism into question, but when you show them proof that they are wrong and stuff doesnt work like that irl they just close the thread.
A 300 page document detailing how cluster bombs work, both nato and pact, is considered not constructive. Threads like <300 players online omg ded game are very constructive. ok

then comes the game part. And at the end you have a mush of something thats realistic when it fits, and gamey when it doesnt. totally arbitrary.

armor and ifv's and even scouts struggle to see atgm in buildings but they can see the missile so that they autolaunch smoke. 400% logic right there.

at the end of the day i ask myself, is this a realitic game or a gamey game that has badly designed mechanics added to it for "fun".

ofc ppl hate. not everybody has time or will to express their views, so they just give it a thumbs down and move on. simple

whats your go to for a similar type game that is more realistic?

[A Lamp]

Pizzamovies の投稿を引用：

Because the multiplayer aspect is a gamey toxic cesspool.

10v10 is nothing but static trench warfare where people spam Artillery, and theres an ATGM hiding behind every blade of grass. Eventually players get pissed and leave, causing the AI to take over. This leads to either the AI abandoning capture zones, or rushing their units to get instantly vaporized. Then the other team has free reign to roll up one flank like a carpet, and congrats youve wasted 40mins of your life.

4v4 and 2v2 isnt much better as the tactics are still the same with zero emphasis on combined arms tatctical movements and engagements. 90% of this game is playing recon peek a boo and using Arty to kill the enemies Anti-Tank units so you can push without losing several hundred points. Thats the game, blow up the enemies cover with artillery and then slowly creep up like its 1914 again.

Smoke is useless as it doesnt last long enough to take advantage of and is a great way to alert the enemy to your plans. Infantry ATGMs make supporting with IFVs and APCs suicidal. Tanks 9/10 deploy smoke at the worst times unless your babysitting them every nanosecond and do it manually. Counter battery is mostly worthless as well and either misses or doesn't kill anything. Aircraft are situational and they either massivley under perform or are angels from god. SAMS and AA is also hit or miss, ive watched Chaparrals miss all 4 shots and then get wiped out by return fire, or Hinds brush off multiple Stingers and lazily spin away to repair and come back, or slow A-10s glide over the enemy and watch multiple missiles from SA-Whatever launch and achieve nothing.

There is also 0 communication in games, no tactics whatsoever. Public chat is dead as a cinderblock. At least Red Dragons chat was alive and you could have a laugh as you wait in the lobby simulator. This game no one talks at all, and the few times you run into a player who actually wants to communicate, everyone ignores them.

The Skirmish is lackluster. Easy and Medium AI dont deploy properly or utilize counters. Hard AI becomes too predictable, and anything above that just cheats to give the impression of difficulty. Friendly AI is a liability, especially in Destruction.

I could go on and on, about the model assets, how the French hold the Famas by the barrel instead of the actual handgrip, or 9/10 soviet special forces being basically shirtless and wearing adidas track shoes. Or the lack of 50cal HMMWVs for infantry transports, or no Soviet T72s. But you get the idea.

>Before the inevitable "But its early access"

just some tips for smokes. Nothing is stopping you from firing more smoke rounds to insure the smoke covers last as long as needed. Also you can fire smokes and multiple different positions and do small "propping" attacks to so your enemy wont know which one is the real offensive force until much later.

[ArmedGhost-]

Reality Merchant の投稿を引用：

Pizzamovies の投稿を引用：

Because the multiplayer aspect is a gamey toxic cesspool.

10v10 is nothing but static trench warfare where people spam Artillery, and theres an ATGM hiding behind every blade of grass. Eventually players get pissed and leave, causing the AI to take over. This leads to either the AI abandoning capture zones, or rushing their units to get instantly vaporized. Then the other team has free reign to roll up one flank like a carpet, and congrats youve wasted 40mins of your life.

4v4 and 2v2 isnt much better as the tactics are still the same with zero emphasis on combined arms tatctical movements and engagements. 90% of this game is playing recon peek a boo and using Arty to kill the enemies Anti-Tank units so you can push without losing several hundred points. Thats the game, blow up the enemies cover with artillery and then slowly creep up like its 1914 again.

Smoke is useless as it doesnt last long enough to take advantage of and is a great way to alert the enemy to your plans. Infantry ATGMs make supporting with IFVs and APCs suicidal. Tanks 9/10 deploy smoke at the worst times unless your babysitting them every nanosecond and do it manually. Counter battery is mostly worthless as well and either misses or doesn't kill anything. Aircraft are situational and they either massivley under perform or are angels from god. SAMS and AA is also hit or miss, ive watched Chaparrals miss all 4 shots and then get wiped out by return fire, or Hinds brush off multiple Stingers and lazily spin away to repair and come back, or slow A-10s glide over the enemy and watch multiple missiles from SA-Whatever launch and achieve nothing.

There is also 0 communication in games, no tactics whatsoever. Public chat is dead as a cinderblock. At least Red Dragons chat was alive and you could have a laugh as you wait in the lobby simulator. This game no one talks at all, and the few times you run into a player who actually wants to communicate, everyone ignores them.

The Skirmish is lackluster. Easy and Medium AI dont deploy properly or utilize counters. Hard AI becomes too predictable, and anything above that just cheats to give the impression of difficulty. Friendly AI is a liability, especially in Destruction.

I could go on and on, about the model assets, how the French hold the Famas by the barrel instead of the actual handgrip, or 9/10 soviet special forces being basically shirtless and wearing adidas track shoes. Or the lack of 50cal HMMWVs for infantry transports, or no Soviet T72s. But you get the idea.

>Before the inevitable "But its early access"

The static warfare part of 10v10s is players having a trouble grasping tactics, not the game's fault in that case. Same thing with your complaint about the 'recon peek a boo' and arty spam in 3v3 and 4v4, also players not understanding tactics or coming up with strategy before the game starts.

If you put two players that never maneuver up against eachother.... nothing will move.

This is the epitome of modern gaming. Gamers not having the resilience or knowledge to overcome situations, then they blame their lack of know how on game mechanics or developer choices.

[ArmedGhost-]

Pizzamovies の投稿を引用：

Because the multiplayer aspect is a gamey toxic cesspool.

10v10 is nothing but static trench warfare where people spam Artillery, and theres an ATGM hiding behind every blade of grass. Eventually players get pissed and leave, causing the AI to take over. This leads to either the AI abandoning capture zones, or rushing their units to get instantly vaporized. Then the other team has free reign to roll up one flank like a carpet, and congrats youve wasted 40mins of your life.

4v4 and 2v2 isnt much better as the tactics are still the same with zero emphasis on combined arms tatctical movements and engagements. 90% of this game is playing recon peek a boo and using Arty to kill the enemies Anti-Tank units so you can push without losing several hundred points. Thats the game, blow up the enemies cover with artillery and then slowly creep up like its 1914 again.

Smoke is useless as it doesnt last long enough to take advantage of and is a great way to alert the enemy to your plans. Infantry ATGMs make supporting with IFVs and APCs suicidal. Tanks 9/10 deploy smoke at the worst times unless your babysitting them every nanosecond and do it manually. Counter battery is mostly worthless as well and either misses or doesn't kill anything. Aircraft are situational and they either massivley under perform or are angels from god. SAMS and AA is also hit or miss, ive watched Chaparrals miss all 4 shots and then get wiped out by return fire, or Hinds brush off multiple Stingers and lazily spin away to repair and come back, or slow A-10s glide over the enemy and watch multiple missiles from SA-Whatever launch and achieve nothing.

There is also 0 communication in games, no tactics whatsoever. Public chat is dead as a cinderblock. At least Red Dragons chat was alive and you could have a laugh as you wait in the lobby simulator. This game no one talks at all, and the few times you run into a player who actually wants to communicate, everyone ignores them.

The Skirmish is lackluster. Easy and Medium AI dont deploy properly or utilize counters. Hard AI becomes too predictable, and anything above that just cheats to give the impression of difficulty. Friendly AI is a liability, especially in Destruction.

I could go on and on, about the model assets, how the French hold the Famas by the barrel instead of the actual handgrip, or 9/10 soviet special forces being basically shirtless and wearing adidas track shoes. Or the lack of 50cal HMMWVs for infantry transports, or no Soviet T72s. But you get the idea.

>Before the inevitable "But its early access"

Well. the game is actually early access. If you're expecting a flawless, fully developed, finished game in any early access title, you're kidding yourself.

Nobody is forcing you to play, if you don't like the how the game functions, leave your review and move on.

When buying an early access title it's important to have a realistic set of expectations and manage them.

[zwyrtek]

Early access you could say meybe half year ago, there is planty of content now in game, and looking even only at % of positive reviews going down during that year, game alone on that goes in wrong direction. Right now it is only 80% with 77% in last 30 days.. Steel division got 78% and only europan escalation got less then 80% while other wargames are closer to 90%.

[ArmedGhost-]

zwyrtek の投稿を引用：

Early access you could say meybe half year ago, there is planty of content now in game, and looking even only at % of positive reviews going down during that year, game alone on that goes in wrong direction. Right now it is only 80% with 77% in last 30 days.. Steel division got 78% and only europan escalation got less then 80% while other wargames are closer to 90%.

The game is still officially an early access game. Doesn't matter if there's more content or X time has passed, the game is early access until the devs feel it's fit to full release.