New Runspeed feels so much better, a good change.

[Wight]

5% Crouch
15% Standing

It is not that much, it is fine and makes the game feel better.


You slimesnails seem to be having a mental breakdown over something that will make the game better.

[Uhzu]

Yeah, I haven't heard anyone complaining about it while I'm playing. Feels much better to play.

[Wight]

Originally posted by Hazor:

Yeah, I haven't heard anyone complaining about it while I'm playing. Feels much better to play.

I just don't understand why people are so frustrated by it, the negative reviews to me do not make sense, is it longtimeplayers that don't even play the game that see a change that makes the game more "unrealistic" according to them and that's why they are mad?

[MaX-NOR]

The new run speed is good, however the British weapoonds need a tweek.

[Streitross]

Run speed is 5% to 7% too high it was not adapted to the tanks, already noticeable how much missing T17 makes I think it comes soon a patch that corrects this, which affects the visors and running

[Thucydides]

Originally posted by Castus:

Originally posted by Hazor:

Yeah, I haven't heard anyone complaining about it while I'm playing. Feels much better to play.

I just don't understand why people are so frustrated by it, the negative reviews to me do not make sense, is it longtimeplayers that don't even play the game that see a change that makes the game more "unrealistic" according to them and that's why they are mad?

First off if you want to understand don't assume everyone who feels different is mad. Lots of people aren't mad, they just don't like it.

"longtimeplayers"

Not even sure what you mean there. I've played the game plenty. I'm not mad but I don't think it is a good design decision.

So why do people?

It's because generally "realistic" games tend to make movement clunkier and slower *by design*. More arcadey shooters do the opposite. This is to try and represent some limitations of the real world to make game play out more realistically. Partly it's about how heavy kit is and running slow, etc. But it's also about the actual speed of combat and style of play. Generally speaking players are going to go as fast as possible. One of the reasons more aracdey games feel so fast and smooth, but also so unrealistic, is everyone can run fast all the time. It encourages people to play like rambo, and it makes it easier to actually pull off a rambo rampage. It makes it more like a game which encourages traditional FPS skill over teamwork and tactics. None of these are necessairly inherently bad but of course it's subjective and some people don't like it.

They also have added weapons, uniforms and tanks to maps that don't make much sense historically. And not realism related but have introduced new bugs and perfomance issues in the patch too. The new map is badly designed from a gameplay perspective too. So that adds on to how annoyed people are.

Put it this way, if anyone didn't like HLL now likes it because i t's faster and more like other games, that is exactly why some people who used to like it don't like this change.

HLL was kind of between the two extremes and this is a big part of why it was successful, it found a sweet spot for many people. Changing this is the biggest change away from this middleground they have made arguably, moving it more into the arcadey section.

And finally people need to realise this isn't really about game design for the developers, like it is for us, what plays better. It's about maximising profit. The company got bought to make money, not as a charity. The owners have decided to try to make more money by making the game more popular by making it closer to bigger shooters. This change is obviously good if you like it, bad if you dont. But from a business perspective it is short-sighted as it might help the game out short-term, but it's never going to out-compete the really big arcadey ww2 shooters. And it's abandoning it's unique selling point of blending arcadey and realistic shooters by being kind of in the middle.

[Lord Micturate]

100% agree. Run speed now feels much smoother and natural, even though it is still slower than milsims like Squad and Arma3.

The people whining just need to learn how to lead targets better instead of sit in their basement and whine like children.

[Thucydides]

Originally posted by Vograx:

100% agree. Run speed now feels much smoother and natural, even though it is still slower than milsims like Squad and Arma3.

The people whining just need to learn how to lead targets better instead of sit in their basement and whine like children.

And yet I made a completely reasonable post without insulting anyone, and you reply calling people basement dwelling children. Ironic considering your child-like brain can only seem to grasp a dichotomy of "people who agree with me = reasonable, people who disagree with me = children". You could have had a conversation and explain your view, instead you just insulted people for daring to have a different view to you. Grow up kid.

[Uncle Bunkle Beard]

The irony is that players who have been around since the early days of EA will remember when this "new" speed was normal before they introduced trucks that no infantry squad uses after warm-up anyway, and was the excuse used for reducing it.

IMO back then the game was more "tactical shooter" as you could get flanks going faster and the game was more about manoeuvre and organisation of the team/squad to counter large pushes from unexpected directions. It actually felt rewarding to play as and communicate with a team.

The speed also reduced the effectiveness of camping in a bush and the one-shot-kill lethality of the rifles overcame the extra difficulty of aiming at slightly faster targets before they intro'd the arcade bs of reducing dmg at 200m+. Most people completely lack the mental capacity to understand that balancing needs to be holistic and that a single change can have multiple implications.

Then we have all the morons asking for stamina bar as if that makes the game more realistic... what we really need is inertia and variable crouch height.

Have to agree there are many other aspects that people should be complaining about this update other than speed like the sight pictures of the British weapons (would take about 1 hour of research to play other WW2 games to see how this problem has been fixed many times before) and the accuracy of MGs/tanks at range on maps without fog or other environmentals (heat haze / dust).

[Lord Micturate]

Originally posted by Thucydides:

HLL was kind of between the two extremes and this is a big part of why it was successful, it found a sweet spot for many people. Changing this is the biggest change away from this middleground they have made arguably, moving it more into the arcadey section.

And finally people need to realise this isn't really about game design for the developers, like it is for us, what plays better. It's about maximising profit. The company got bought to make money, not as a charity. The owners have decided to try to make more money by making the game more popular by making it closer to bigger shooters. This change is obviously good if you like it, bad if you dont. But from a business perspective it is short-sighted as it might help the game out short-term, but it's never going to out-compete the really big arcadey ww2 shooters. And it's abandoning it's unique selling point of blending arcadey and realistic shooters by being kind of in the middle.

What on Earth are you blabbering about?

HLL is not in the middle ground between fastest runspeed games (arcade like) and the slowest milsims (squad, arma3).

Even with the faster run speed introduced in update 14 the runspeed in HLL is SLOWER than both Squad and Arma3. So how can you claim it is in the middle ground? People have done tests across different games (just look up videos on youtube) and HLL is consistently the game with the slowest run speed out of all of them.

If you want HLL to be more realistic in the direction of milsim games then they need to increase the run speed to be even FASTER than what we currently have in update 14. THAT is how you would make HLL more realistic.

Slowing down the run speed and/or reverting to pre-update 14 means making the game LESS realistic.

New update is great. It made the game more realistic, it feels smoother when playing and you feel like you are playing a soldier who has trained for war and not some cave dwelling fat dude who weighs 300 lbs and can barely lift his legs to walk 5 steps up a flight of stairs.

New runspeed = one of the best parts of this entire update.

[Thucydides]

All these videos seem to be made by people looking to rush videos out. For example the speed comparison one is 100m sprint that ignores Arma and Squad both have a fatigue mechanic.

You are also ignoring that it's not just about speed itself, in the sense of running a race, it's about how that speed affects gameplay. Squad and Arma and Post Scriptum all include other game mechanics to balance speed out. The game design isn't just how many mph can someone run, it's about discouraging everyone rushing around the map and being able to play like rambo.

Also I feel like you're a bit of a fanboy to say "the update is great". Running speed is subjective but part of the update are objectively not great, like the bugs and performance issues introduced. And there are some things that are subjective but aren't related to running speed, like a further reduction in historical accuracy in regards to kit, tanks and uniform on some maps. And the sights on the British rifles being badly researched/implemented. I'm assuming you're not a fan of bad gun design, bugs, etc. And you probably don't mind historical accuracy even if you don't care much about it. So hardly all around great, more you just like there is a new faction and the running speed I'm guessing...?

"New update is great. It made the game more realistic, it feels smoother when playing and you feel like you are playing a soldier who has trained for war and not some cave dwelling fat dude who weighs 300 lbs and can barely lift his legs to walk 5 steps up a flight of stairs."

I'm sorry but that is just hollywood you're talking about. I go hiking all the time and I can tell you that if you put all that kit on my back and made me fight in a wars for years, that I would not be able to sprint around non-stop all the time. Healthy people get really ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ tired when they are constantly on the go, in stressful situations, often not eating well. It's also very childish of you to try to indirectly suggest anyone who disagrees with is a fat loser. Now if you want to argue "yeah but who wants to play that, I want to be the hollywood war hero, the guy in the propaganda posters!" then sure, I don't like that type of game, you do, that's great. You're living in an alternate reality if you think sprinting around 24/7 is a realistic target for a "trained soldier".

It sounds like you want the game to fulfill your hero fantasies, so just say that. Don't try and pretend that it's realistic for someone to do training then become superman. It's ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ tiring. Try running 500 metres in kit carrying and LMG for example, you'll be knackered even if you're healthy, you'll be gasping for breath if you're not.

[Zoidberg]

Originally posted by Castus:

5% Crouch :spiffo:
15% Standing :WW2_WARRIOR_GIRL:

It is not that much, it is fine and makes the game feel better. :praisesun:


You slimesnails seem to be having a mental breakdown over something that will make the game better.


:germany: :TheD: :TheD: :TheD: :germany:

I always thought run speed was to slow, but 15% is in my opinion way to much. I would be happy with 7.5% or 10%. Crouch speed was not neccesary though.

[Insane Roy]

Originally posted by Castus:

5% Crouch :spiffo:
15% Standing :WW2_WARRIOR_GIRL:

It is not that much, it is fine and makes the game feel better. :praisesun:


You slimesnails seem to be having a mental breakdown over something that will make the game better.


:germany: :TheD: :A: :TheD: :TheD: :Y: :germany:

Have you ever tried to shot a deer when it's running a full speed? an impossible task and this is what it's like game is now.

[Wight]

Originally posted by Moronic Roy:

Have you ever tried to shoot a deer when it's running a full speed?An impossible task and this is what it's like game is now.

Yes I have and yes it is very possible... Also humans are 6-10x slower than a deer...

The only impossible task here is understandig your warped sense of reality.

[Zoidberg]

Originally posted by Insane Roy:

Originally posted by Castus:

5% Crouch :spiffo:
15% Standing :WW2_WARRIOR_GIRL:

It is not that much, it is fine and makes the game feel better. :praisesun:


You slimesnails seem to be having a mental breakdown over something that will make the game better.


:germany: :TheD: :TheD: :TheD: :germany:

Have you ever tried to shot a deer when it's running a full speed? an impossible task and this is what it's like game is now.

Yesterday i managed to hit 5 out of 6 shots on running targets at 300 distance with the Enfield.

Sounds like you need to practice more on running targets and the bullet velocity.

[ZeroFuqsGiven]

Originally posted by Uncle Bunkle Beard:

The irony is that players who have been around since the early days of EA will remember when this "new" speed was normal before they introduced trucks that no infantry squad uses after warm-up anyway, and was the excuse used for reducing it.

IMO back then the game was more "tactical shooter" as you could get flanks going faster and the game was more about manoeuvre and organisation of the team/squad to counter large pushes from unexpected directions. It actually felt rewarding to play as and communicate with a team.

The speed also reduced the effectiveness of camping in a bush and the one-shot-kill lethality of the rifles overcame the extra difficulty of aiming at slightly faster targets before they intro'd the arcade bs of reducing dmg at 200m+. Most people completely lack the mental capacity to understand that balancing needs to be holistic and that a single change can have multiple implications.

Then we have all the morons asking for stamina bar as if that makes the game more realistic... what we really need is inertia and variable crouch height.

Have to agree there are many other aspects that people should be complaining about this update other than speed like the site pictures of the British weapons (would take about 1 hour of research to play other WW2 games to see how this problem has been fixed many times before) and the accuracy of MGs/tanks at range on maps without fog or other environmentals (heat haze / dust).

Imagine being so stupid that you think stamina is unrealistic.