Установить Steam
войти
|
язык
简体中文 (упрощенный китайский)
繁體中文 (традиционный китайский)
日本語 (японский)
한국어 (корейский)
ไทย (тайский)
Български (болгарский)
Čeština (чешский)
Dansk (датский)
Deutsch (немецкий)
English (английский)
Español - España (испанский)
Español - Latinoamérica (латиноам. испанский)
Ελληνικά (греческий)
Français (французский)
Italiano (итальянский)
Bahasa Indonesia (индонезийский)
Magyar (венгерский)
Nederlands (нидерландский)
Norsk (норвежский)
Polski (польский)
Português (португальский)
Português-Brasil (бразильский португальский)
Română (румынский)
Suomi (финский)
Svenska (шведский)
Türkçe (турецкий)
Tiếng Việt (вьетнамский)
Українська (украинский)
Сообщить о проблеме с переводом
Правила обсуждений
Пожаловаться
If you're the only dude doing that in a team of noobs, your efforts will still be for nothing. You have no real power over the outcome. You can't ace the whole team like in CS or out beam 10 peasants like in Old Rust Recoil.
I remember people like those in this thread when Battlebit came out.
That ♥♥♥♥ was supposed to change gaming or idk. AAA studios were bozos and the game was a proof of yadi yada.
Nah and I predicted it right away and refunded it right away, and look at it now. It's dead.
RPing as if you were part of a chain of command gets old real quick.
You can barely get that going in CS at 15k elo. GL with a 100 casuals.
I'm only going to respond to this here, because the rest isn't worth worrying about.
What's your definition of a game that lasts vs one that doesn't?
Arma 3 released in 2013 and in its 12th year since release has a concurrent average playerbase of 10k players (36k unique in the last 24hrs alone), pretty impressive for a 12 year old milsim title.
Squad released onto Steam early access in 2015, 10 years ago this year and has an average playercount of 15k (unique player count so high that battlemetrics doesn't even show it), even more impressive for a milsim shooter.
You're judging the success of these titles based on absurdly high playercounts, which you see in games like counter-strike (an entirely different type of shooter that appeals to a very different audience) and think that because these games don't have player counts in the hundreds of thousands that they must be doing something wrong.
The reality is that this aspect of the shooter genre is targeted at a very specific audience, a market that isn't as big as the more casual and competitive shooters like CS, CoD and BF (amongst others). Whilst none of these games are perfect, they do well to hit their target audience appropriately.
HLL is absolutely not "fine as is", there are a great many improvements that it needs, all of which have been suggested over the years. It's not likely to happen, sadly. But this doesn't change the fact that, 6 years later, the average player count is holding steady, which is more than enough for most people.
People are all about themselves—that's the truth. You can only debate with friends, and even there, it's challenging. Dialectics is one of the greatest lies ever told.
I don't know where you get that I'm a casual into games like these, since I've played almost 2k hours between Arma 3, Squad and HLL combined, not included over 100 hours in RO2 back in the day. I haven't played Rust in over a decade and whatever changes they made to attract more players are irrelevant to this discussion.
HLL is not a good example of doing whats right to attract more players. It's a casual shooter with some hardcore elements. Most of its playerbase are casual players having been drawn in by sales and free weekends (or stuff like the EGS free period). It's also been deliberately designed (unfortunately) to be more accessible to a wider audience, as stated by the original lead game dev design, Max, back in the day.
In truth, you're a newcomer to this and have no clue what you're talking about.
Again, what is your definition of games like these coming and going? What period of time are you talking about here? A few years? A decade? Define it for us.
Again, Arma 3 is now in its 12th year and still going strong. Squad is in its 10th year and still going strong. HLL might be much more casual, but is in its 6th year (not including 2 years of pre-steam release) and also still showing no decline in its community (epic games free period not withstanding).
These games are very clearly not to your taste, which is fine. But don't go pretending like you're the arbiter of what these games should be, because there's a very clear market being tapped into with them and they do last a good long time. The same cannot be said of games like CoD and BF, which have player numbers in the hundreds of thousands, but die off when the new title releases every 2 years.
The concept of mastering a skill often brings up the "10,000-hour rule," popularized by Malcolm Gladwell in his book Outliers. This idea suggests that it takes around 10,000 hours of deliberate practice to achieve mastery in a field. However, this number is more of a guideline than a strict rule."
You have less than 1 hour played in Squad, how many hours do you have in Arma 3?
Either way, please define what you consider to be the appropriate length of time that a game just comes and goes. Until you can define this, there's no point continuing this discussion.
To reiterate, Arma 3 and Squad aren't dead, nor close to it. Their player counts are still pretty high. HLL has remained steady over the years with occasional jumps due to sales and free weekends.
My reference? Rust, which stole 5k hours of my life to 'bring more players' at a 244k population.
If 244k was not enough for the role-players of Rust, why is 10k enough for the role-players of these games?
Could it be that you guys just advance yourselves without coherent and constant standards?
My problem with that? The fact that games avoid being skill-based to 'attract more players' while games like these permanently sit at 10k until they die, which lacks coherence.
I would give a lot for another Rust Recoil or another Gunz Online.
Why are you bringing Rust into this? Rust isn't a milsim, it's a survival shooter, a very different type of game in the genre. Further, if you don't think the current player counts are enough to justify spending large amounts of time playing these kinds of games, then simply don't. The tens of thousands of others that do play are more than happy to do so, because they can always find full servers to play on.
Considering that you've clearly not played any of the aforementioned games for an amount of time and are comparing them to unrelated titles, it's pretty obvious you don't understand why these games are still going strong and doing well. Just because they don't have the player counts YOU personally prefer them to have, doesn't mean they aren't doing well.
Squad has actually been doing nothing but seeing increases to its player counts since its release back in 2015. You've no idea what you're talking about here buddy.
It always comes down to, "I like green and you like blue, here are bricks".
Mil Sim RPers think 10k active players is good, I think it's not.
RPers in Rust thought that 240k active players was not enough, I thought it was.
At the end of the day, gamers like me having absolutely nothing to play.
It is objectively not a milsim by many of the definitions in the copy paste you've provided except for maybe "Authentic Environments", which is probably the only thing they do moderately well.