My take on HLL: mil sims are **** and created by people who don't get the point of video games. They have relatively short life spans, a bit like sword games, and this game is no exception.

[Yakub's Finest]

My first one was America’s Army 3, then Red Orchestra, and now this...

It's a good idea on paper, but there is little incentive to rack up hours in these games because, in reality, you have little control over the outcome of the game. So, it's just a goofy RP FPS until it gets forgotten and a new clone comes out.

Honorable mention of disdain for the fact that we get these annoying blurs when bullets come near. The hallmark of not getting the point of video games.
Thanks to Epic for buying the game for me, but I'm going back to DayZ and CS.

[datCookie]

Good news! HLL isn't a milsim. It's mostly a casual shooter, mildly hardcore at best.

It's not that great a game, but it doesn't sound like the game for you. Time to move on

[KingKickAss]

You're applying a take about milsims to a game that isn't a milsim.

[Yakub's Finest]

It's a military simulation in the sense that it expects 100 players to work as a team, and there sure are people who take it seriously... but taking it seriously is absurd because, as already mentioned, you don't really have control over the outcome of the game, trying and improving is absurd.
This is not how you create replay value. It's why they never really become big and fall out of relevance.

[datCookie]

Originally posted by Toki's Road to 6k Elo:

It's a military simulation in the sense that it expects 100 players to work as a team, and there sure are people who take it seriously... but taking it seriously is absurd because, as already mentioned, you don't really have control over the outcome of the game, trying and improving is absurd.
This is not how you create replay value. It's why they never really become big and fall out of relevance.

HLL has been around and active for 6 years this year now, not including the 2 years pre-Steam access for KS backers. Sure, games like this never really get the large playerbase like CoD and BF do, but that's just the niche of the genre it's in. Doesn't mean they're not worth making, because there is an audience for them.

Arma and Squad are both exceedingly popular and much more realistic and in-depth than HLL is. HLL has drawn in the more casual audience and as much as I do not like the development of it, I will stipulate that I don't see it dying any time soon, at least until a better title comes out.

[Yakub's Finest]

"at least until a better title comes out."

Thanks for proving my point, but I wouldn't say 'better,' just... until a new thing comes out and consumers go 'NEW?!???!?' and forget what they were doing before that.

[datCookie]

Originally posted by Toki's Road to 6k Elo:

"at least until a better title comes out."

Thanks for proving my point, but I wouldn't say 'better,' just... until a new thing comes out and consumers go 'NEW?!???!?' and forget what they were doing before that.

As far as this particular genre of shooters go, shiny and new don't tend to take people away from their chosen game for very long, if it's not a better alternative. Several similar titles have been released over the years that some people thought might be the "HLL killer" and it literally never happened, because they just weren't good games to play.

This isn't CoD, where people will jump to the newest title because it's new. People in the hardcore and realistic shooters prefer "better" games to move to, before giving up their current one, or will play them both.

[KingKickAss]

Originally posted by Toki's Road to 6k Elo:

It's a military simulation in the sense that it expects 100 players to work as a team

Is that really a valid classification of a milsim? Players with guns having to interact with their own team mates?

[Yakub's Finest]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DjlqkmWF4-U
A video uploaded by a younger me.

That game is 100% dead now, but CS: Source and even 1.6 are still alive, and there is a reason. Can you believe that RO2 peaked at 16k? CS: Source got 16k just this month.

Not titles that I'd invest in.
I guess I felt like writing that because a part of me is annoyed by seeing such artistic non-profit projects because of how many devs avoid skill-based games like Gunz Online and Rust Recoil. I did lose 4k hours of my life in Rust "to gain more players".

[KingKickAss]

Originally posted by Toki's Road to 6k Elo:

I am not here to debate semantics.
You know what I have in mind when I say the word, that is good enough.

Its not semantics when you're classifying a game as a different genre than it is and then critiquing it. People will say that HLL is a milsim, and then go on to compare it to Arma/Squad or something.

Originally posted by Toki's Road to 6k Elo:

What I am saying is that when you put too much into these two things in such a way, you trivialize your game. We can't have tactical teamwork with 100 players.

Hell Let Loose's biggest issue is actually really interesting because it can double-up as commentary on players themselves. By design, the game functions, but it assumes that the people playing it will try to actually play it. The gameplay and everything starts breaking down simply because a decent amount of players in said match are like NPCs.
Its funny to think about. Game has an objective like most games do, and people will pick it up and not really pursue said objective despite it being the point of the game.
I do think it sucks though because I feel like when it comes to designing the game, its a negative if the developers cant put out what because they're factoring in people just being dumb and refusing to play the game properly. Kind of like someone going to a hardware store, buying a tool, and then using it incorrectly. Its something that's created with the assumption/benefit of the doubt that you're going to use it for it's intended purpose.

That being said, HLL is 5 years in without a tutorial which is a huge deal and very bad for the constant stream of free weekends, gamepass/Epic Games free to keep events they keep doing. Its pointless to do all these player-base growing events if the game itself is bad at telling the player how to actually play the game.

[Roovka]

This is not a milsim so most of this is just yap for the sake of yap.

[tmo97]

It's a matter of appealing to many different kinds of people, in this case, a hundred, but there's a system. If you are an officer, you can influence other squads, for example, by giving the other officers key information. It /will/ change the outcome

[Meddle92]

Apparently when the player is expected to do more than spawn and die it makes the game a mil sim.

[Meddle92]

Originally posted by tmo97:

It's a matter of appealing to many different kinds of people, in this case, a hundred, but there's a system. If you are an officer, you can influence other squads, for example, by giving the other officers key information. It /will/ change the outcome

Or also just destroying enemy outposts and garrisons is the easiest way to influence the flow of a game.

[Yakub's Finest]

*Make a thread about how this game is bound to forever remain a niche casual mil sim because of what it is and to vent frustration about gaming.
*Get swarmed by people with casual play styles who want to debate semantics.

Welcome to the Steam Forum.

[Yakub's Finest]

Also, yeah, this is a military sim in the measure where it has a chain of command and too many players to make individual contribution significant.
It's what I have in mind and it's the problem with the genre.
The same problem can be felt in Arma where you can't do ♥♥♥♥ as a solo. You're an ant just roaming around and saying funny things on voice chat to entertain yourself.

Starting a debate over that is like starting a debate over whether or not 7dayz2die is a survival game because you hate the RPG elements in it.

"Military simulation (mil-sim) games are designed to provide a realistic and immersive experience of military operations. Here are some defining aspects:
Realism: Mil-sim games strive for a high degree of realism in terms of graphics, sound effects, and physics. This includes realistic weapon mechanics, ballistics, and damage models.
Tactical Gameplay: These games emphasize strategy, planning, and teamwork. Players often need to coordinate with others, follow orders, and execute complex missions.
Authentic Environments: The game settings are usually based on real-world locations and scenarios. The maps are often detailed and expansive, providing a realistic backdrop for military operations.
Complex Mechanics: Mil-sim games often have intricate gameplay mechanics, such as managing resources, navigating complex terrains, and using various military vehicles and equipment.
Mission Variety: Players engage in a variety of mission types, including reconnaissance, assault, defense, and rescue operations. Each mission requires different strategies and approaches.
Attention to Detail: These games pay close attention to the details of military life, including the chain of command, military protocols, and realistic communication methods.
Immersive Storytelling: Many mil-sim games incorporate detailed storylines and character development, providing a deeper narrative context for the missions and operations."

Go debate with Bill Gate if you do not like the criteria it lists for a mil sim. This is not the thread for it. This is the thread about why some of these criteria create games that do not last, and how seeing this annoys me considering how many devs sulk skill-based gaming "to attract more players".
There are many skill-based games that have the potential to have more players than these niche artistic non-profit projects. Yet...