The reason most vets have quit the game.

[✚Panzerlang✚]

It's my opinion of course but based upon over two decades of playing just about every FPS created in that time.

Skill-stealing game mechanics. HLL is right up at the top of the table in this regard and it's what attracts the casual CoD-type players who now constitute most of the player-base and has driven away the vets who originally came for what they believed would be a hard-core realism game.

Skilful play is largely a waste of time. The myriad bugs with movement vis-a-vis cover/concealment makes patience pointless, so why not just run & gun. Combat outcomes, and specifically in my case as I play almost exclusively AT, the necessity to arcade double-tap tanks (and sometimes not even that is enough). Run & gun the tanks, die, respawn...why not? When the alternative skilful play of stalking one and eventually getting a perfect position, angle and range is met by damage only and then a crew-member teleports out to insta-shoot you...that's if nearby infantry don't immediately down you once you've blown your cover with that first shot (that in RL would have killed or permanently crippled the tank).

This goes as much for other roles to a greater or lesser degree. So what we have is a game trying to be based on skilful and realistic tactics that is totally confounded by the reality of the arcade mechanics. HLL is trying to have its cake and eat it too, only to choke on the first swallow. It's in the middle of a huge identity crisis and has the type of player-base to prove it.

But, and again just my opinion, this is the inevitable result of BM chasing the $$$ instead of remaining true to their original vision. The game is a god-awful mess with no sign of rescue.

I guess the obvious answer to all the above is "who cares?" Not enough, obviously; those who did care are mostly gone, with those left behind having pretty much the exact kind of game they crave...just another mediocre CoD. Hey ho, sad matters. :(

[Cylixx]

What a loser.

Even if this guy had gone without water for 2 days - even then I couldn't have empathy for his whining, pious tone.*

[Pak0tac]

Most players left?
So why its so hard to find a free spot at the server list? Im so confused

[✚Panzerlang✚]

Originally posted by Sgt.Summer:

Most players left?
So why its so hard to find a free spot at the server list? Im so confused

You misread. Most VETS have left.

[mobucks]

Post Scriptum sounds better for the OP. Never played it though.
I like HLL because it can get really hellish.

[Jedi]

Non of you guys presented any counter argument for what the topic creator has to say.

Originally posted by Sgt.Summer:

Most players left?
So why its so hard to find a free spot at the server list? Im so confused

Topic says: "The reason most vets have quit the game."

Servers are filled with noobs that are MOSTLY not willing to communicate or play any tactics. There are more people now than before Update 7, but quality is much worst.

[Chef]

I'm still playing with guys that have had the game before EA...there's still plenty of vets in my world.

[Summerdreams]

Originally posted by PBSr Jedi:

Non of you guys presented any counter argument for what the topic creator has to say.

Originally posted by Sgt.Summer:

Most players left?
So why its so hard to find a free spot at the server list? Im so confused

Topic says: "The reason most vets have quit the game."

Servers are filled with noobs that are MOSTLY not willing to communicate or play any tactics. There are more people now than before Update 7, but quality is much worst.

Best counter argument: look up steam charts and see how the community "left" the game. Go to PS play it for some months and you will see: there are only the same players playing the game. Then you will look up PS steam charts and hey, it behaves exactly the same as HLL. So if vets would have left the game there would have been the same amount of people needed to join the game at the same time. if it would be as bad as the OP tries to tell us, well then there would never have been any kind of vet, as everyone instantly left the game i suppose? Otherwise there would be peaks in that chart, but there is no peak, its a steady line.

But then it is only one interpretation of the chart, it could be different. But hey again, hetzer throws some "proven" "statistics" into the discussion without any proof (at least i cant offer proper statistics or HISTORICAL DATA to prove him wrong this time). But what i can tell against his statement of AT damage: in real life i would not be able to respawn, neither could i simply spam my ammunition and will never run out of ammunition. The equipment might even get lost during battle (which is not possible ingame :) ). Therefore some tweaks are made so that everyone can play the game at a nice lvl. But if you want oneshot kills at tanks then go on, make equipment valuable and make your team lose it if it gets destroyed / captured / lost and make an ammunition cap.
Besides that, hetzer claims in several discussions that tank gameplay sucks (just think of being oneshot like in RL, guess that would make tank gameplay even better *irony off*). If it would be like hetzer would like it to be, we are even getting a drop in skill needed to kill a tank, as i can literally sneak around, die, respawn and if i hit this tank ONCE, it is destroyed. So this would cause a lonewolfers paradise, just saying.

Additional to that: there is teamplay, coordination and skill needed to kill a tank according to his statement (you cannot oneshot it, so secure a proper position and the area around and you cant easily kill a tank all alone), making his argument invalid in the first place. Again, Just saying.
Adressing run & gun: i do not know which game he is / iam playing, if i take my MG / bolt action and push / play slow and together with my squad, i am much more successful than doing the exact same thing much faster and on my own.

To compare HLL and CoD, i would at least try both games for a second and make an analysis. What can i achieve playing solo in CoD and in HLL? In CoD you are literally reducing YOUR OWN efficience by playing together with your team. In HLL, as his statement implies (read above), you arent able to kill a tank completely on your own (e.g.). You cannot cap an entire objective by rushing in as rambo. You cannot push an entire flank going solotank. So why is he claiming this gameplay is like CoD? Just by actually, and i mean actually doing an OBJECTIVE analysis would get you to the point, that HLL is totally different from CoD. Maybe once in his lifetime he will do ONE OBJECTIVE analysis on facts on not just throwing out "arguments" based on "his opinion".

Maybe he even mentioned these garisons mechanics (im not sure about that), but as long as im not sure about it i wont go into detail WHY the current mechanics are better than the previous ones.

[Summerdreams]

Adressing his statement of "$$$" in a seperate post: maybe he should go and try to run his own company. If i take a look at PS (e.g.) how much time has been needed to get some "proper" updates done? Well very much i can tell you. Why? Small dev team and small ressources. So if you want to develop / evolve you have to make money. Without that, you are in no way able to deliver a game which is nice in ALL WAYS. He named other mil-games (some are milsim-like) in other discussions, which are quite dead already, sometimes not even surviving for 1-2 years after release (there are some exceptions ofc), just because NOONE played them --> not enough marketing, and some bad bugs / mechanics due to an increased focus on other really realistic mechanics, resulting in an overall mediocre milsim.

[Pak0tac]

Originally posted by Summerdreams:

Adressing his statement of "$$$" in a seperate post: maybe he should go and try to run his own company. If i take a look at PS (e.g.) how much time has been needed to get some "proper" updates done? Well very much i can tell you. Why? Small dev team and small ressources. So if you want to develop / evolve you have to make money. Without that, you are in no way able to deliver a game which is nice in ALL WAYS. He named other mil-games (some are milsim-like) in other discussions, which are quite dead already, sometimes not even surviving for 1-2 years after release (there are some exceptions ofc), just because NOONE played them --> not enough marketing, and some bad bugs / mechanics due to an increased focus on other really realistic mechanics, resulting in an overall mediocre milsim.

Quantity over Quality
WW2 tought us that in the best way possible
and China proves it on daily basis

So MORE players for LONGER time = a Successful game
MoW (Men of War) series shows what you get when focusing on Quality instead of Quantity
super cool game, groundbraking for its time, pretty much dead.
With COH (Company of Heroes) is of a lasser quality, but with a much larger player base, a success

[Summerdreams]

Originally posted by Sgt.Summer:

Originally posted by Summerdreams:

Adressing his statement of "$$$" in a seperate post: maybe he should go and try to run his own company. If i take a look at PS (e.g.) how much time has been needed to get some "proper" updates done? Well very much i can tell you. Why? Small dev team and small ressources. So if you want to develop / evolve you have to make money. Without that, you are in no way able to deliver a game which is nice in ALL WAYS. He named other mil-games (some are milsim-like) in other discussions, which are quite dead already, sometimes not even surviving for 1-2 years after release (there are some exceptions ofc), just because NOONE played them --> not enough marketing, and some bad bugs / mechanics due to an increased focus on other really realistic mechanics, resulting in an overall mediocre milsim.

Quantity over Quality
WW2 tought us that in the best way possible
and China proves it on daily basis

So MORE players for LONGER time = a Successful game
MoW (Men of War) series shows what you get when focusing on Quality instead of Quantity
super cool game, groundbraking for its time, pretty much dead.
With COH (Company of Heroes) is of a lasser quality, but with a much larger player base, a success

+1

But going for quantity does not mean you dont deliver quality, its rather a question about what kind of good quality. The allies had good quality as well in tank / plane design, T-34 being at least one of best tank designs so far, having downsides ofc. M4 shermans have been really good as well, ofc they havent been equipped like a german tiger or panther, but take a look at the tiger design, which is simply a thick metal box placed under a rotating well designed high calibre gun. Lets not even mention all the technical issues in panther / tiger design.

[w00tbürger]

Originally posted by Sgt.Summer:

Originally posted by Summerdreams:

Adressing his statement of "$$$" in a seperate post: maybe he should go and try to run his own company. If i take a look at PS (e.g.) how much time has been needed to get some "proper" updates done? Well very much i can tell you. Why? Small dev team and small ressources. So if you want to develop / evolve you have to make money. Without that, you are in no way able to deliver a game which is nice in ALL WAYS. He named other mil-games (some are milsim-like) in other discussions, which are quite dead already, sometimes not even surviving for 1-2 years after release (there are some exceptions ofc), just because NOONE played them --> not enough marketing, and some bad bugs / mechanics due to an increased focus on other really realistic mechanics, resulting in an overall mediocre milsim.

Quantity over Quality
WW2 tought us that in the best way possible
and China proves it on daily basis

So MORE players for LONGER time = a Successful game
MoW (Men of War) series shows what you get when focusing on Quality instead of Quantity
super cool game, groundbraking for its time, pretty much dead.
With COH (Company of Heroes) is of a lasser quality, but with a much larger player base, a success

because its all about entertainment...
we want to enjoy those trips to virtual battlefields.
explosions, gunfire, mighty arty, hitting stuff..
like a good action movie.
nobody wants to watch documentaries at the cinema :D

i mean look at how many players would REALLY like to try some hardcore-flightsimulators like DCS.
couldnt even get the damn thing off the runway
suuuuper fun...

small playerbase -> minimal income -> no money for further development

[Gog]

Originally posted by Sgt.Summer:

MoW (Men of War) series shows what you get when focusing on Quality instead of Quantity
super cool game, groundbraking for its time, pretty much dead.
With COH (Company of Heroes) is of a lasser quality, but with a much larger player base, a success

uh what?

As much as I enjoy the MOW series, it's not up there with COH in terms of production quality. MOW has reused a lot of the same assets over the years and one of their most recent Cold War inspired MOW game was a total and utter flop.

[alphajim49]

Stopped at "vets" - totally subjective opinion.

[devlos]

"Skill-stealing game mechanics. HLL is right up at the top of the table in this regard and it's what attracts the casual CoD-type players who now constitute most of the player-base and has driven away the vets who originally came for what they believed would be a hard-core realism game."

Huh what? People move on on games that are Early Access , it's common to wait for a new update and take a peek if you want to stay this time or not since it's under development.

As for your so called "Cod Players" Without them it would be filled with sour veterans like you , honestly they keep this game alive and are fun to play with. I rather have a game with a potential off a alive playerbase then one that only consistst off so called "hardcore/vets"

Anything else you complain about in this post is just you having a lack off patience , U8 will adress a ton off problems that have been reported and adding new mechanics that are desperately needed.

"But, and again just my opinion, this is the inevitable result of BM chasing the $$$ instead of remaining true to their original vision. The game is a god-awful mess with no sign of rescue."

If BM was chasing the $$$ , they would have dropped hotfixes and released HLL in the state pre U6.

Your whole post sounds like a little child not getting the little toy he paid for ... lmao

[Valentine Michael Smith]

I haven't quit but I have been disappointed with a lot of the changes.

-the garrison change: there never was such a thing as ninja garrisons. It's just morons that can't use their maps. If you lose a flank guess what a "ninja garrison" will pop up there. People seemed to conflate sectors with fronts and they are definitely not the same thing. Your front is a line between your infantry and spawn points not some grid sector. Changing the mechanics to reflect this screwed up mentality just feeds their ignorance. It makes for very very stale gameplay with long drawn out games where whoever gets the middle point just holds it for an hour and that's the game....

-sherman jumbos: used to be americans had the advantage in infantry weapons but germans had better tanks now americans just have better everything.