Showing 1-20 of 918 entries
Sep 18 @ 6:27pm
In topic service freezes the spaceport engineer
This bug also seems to affect the Remote Workshop. Selecting any upgrade causes the entire menu interface to freeze.
- Menu input sounds continue, but nothing changes. It's impossible to tell if anything is working.
- Exiting to main menu and re-entering the game restores it, but the freeze occurs every time.
Sorry for the late reply; I went to sleep pretty much immediately after posting. Anyhow, the guy who explained more is essentially correct but checking should be a lot simpler:

In the ARK menu there should be an option for "Host Non-dedicated Session" or something to that effect when loading your save. It's the mode used for small-group co-op where everyone is tethered to the host within a certain distance. It lets you run the game in the same sort of environment as running on a server without going through the hassle of setting up a dedicated server.

The main difference is that you can pause in SP, but not in non-dedicated mode (unless you use a console command to freeze everything). If the nodes respawn correctly in that mode, then if you just play non-dedicated you can have normal resource spawns.

Make sure to set the session to "private" to avoid randos dropping in on you, though.
It's (probably) a bug. If you exit your SP game before a resource node respawns, that node will never respawn.

It cropped up and was fixed a long, LONG time ago... but it came back after and from this post seems like it's still around. I was just wondering if it had been fixed properly again in the meantime, but it would seem not.

You can test it: try loading your save in non-dedicated server mode (or a dedicated server, if you can manage it) and checking the same place with the same low 0.1 respawn period. If it's there, then you for sure have a bugged game. You have 2 workarounds:

1. Play with an absurdly low respawn multiplier so that everything respawns before you sign off. (Anywhere you build is permanently butchered, though).

2. Play in non-dedicated/ on a dedicated server.

Maybe there are mods that address this issue? Good luck.
Mar 31 @ 12:39pm
In topic 28th March 2019 fix for Trainers and DDMK
Thanks for the fix! Works like a charm.
Mar 12 @ 7:59pm
In topic ok ok ive never played a DMC Game before
Strictly speaking, it's perfectly acceptable to start with 5. However, I would RECOMMEND playing earlier games first. DMC5 will be a lot more enjoyable to you if you actually find yourself a fan of the series and appreciate the story arc that - chronologically - starts in 3.

As a newcomer to the series you won't have the same sort of appreciation for all the little shout-outs and easter eggs packed into this one, and you won't be quite as invested in the characters themselves.

On the flipside of that, you'll probably be less annoyed by the character downgrades Lady and Trish get slapped with in this one. I'm still scratching my head at their sudden tendency toward damsels-in-distress. Yeah, they were always fanservice fuel but at the very least they carried themselves with power.
Yep. Just did the same thing against the Death Scissors:

Trickster for mobility > shotgun for separating them > baiting the scissor attack > parrying it > shotgun for the stylish insta-kill on the first one.

Periodic sword, shotgun, and enemy-stepping to keep the style meter up while getting parry opportunities more parry opportunities, and finishing off one of them through simple accumulated damage...

And I got a positive 120ish points. The grading criteria for this mission seem really strange.
Playing on Devil Hunter, I am really struggling to maintain positive style-points gain, despite reaching high style ranking (S to SSS) in every encounter.

1. The first set of Empusas I can consistently get 38-4200 points.
2. The second set of Hell Cainas/Antenora + Bat I only gain ~2-400 points, without getting hit or dropping in style rank.
3. The double Riot encounter only nets me about ~100 points without getting hit AND hitting at least S.
4. I LOST points down to 3900 from fighting the Death Scissors - again, with no damage and not dropping any style ranks (only gradual increase in rating) - using PARRIES to kill 2/3 of them.

What the hell am I doing wrong? Is the mission bugged?

The path to no-damaging these encounters has also been painful... it's nigh impossible to regain style points for a net increase after getting hit even once.

Does anyone have any insights as to how this friggin' system works, and why I can have the game tell me I'm doing all the right things only to steal my points? Does this get better at higher difficulties when enemies have more health (and thus opportunity for comboing)?
Mar 11 @ 6:39pm
In topic About rating(dumb question)
More specifically, it gives you a negative multiplier to your total score. This equates to a huge difference.

On a related note, it feels like the stylish penalty for getting hit is a tad high... at least for Dante. Even when achieving S+ combos in every encounter, simply getting hit once or twice makes it difficult to stay positive in the points-gain. I mean... c'mon!
Dec 11, 2018 @ 8:43pm
In topic So no new news?
Originally posted by CinemaBane:
We've made another official post on our Facebook page regarding what will be happening in the near future and announcing that the Xmas Mayhem Christmas multiplayer gamemode will be launched once again:

Progress has been very slow, although that has been pretty obvious for quite a while now. However, we are currently working on multiple things that will be implemented in the Cooperative gamemode. Not just under-the-hood bug/glitch fixes and polishing of current in-game content. You can see some of what is going on behind the scenes on our Trello page:

We hope to have more news for you in the coming months, so please stay tuned.


Community Manager

Hi. To start, I certainly respect everyone's dedication to keeping this game going. However, I think you are approaching this the wrong way.

It makes sense that you guys currently lack the manpower to develop quality co-op content. Based on your reasoning, I agree with your decision to not spend development resources on it at this time. However, I think you need to be realistic about the benefits of continuing to develop PVP-oriented content. The market is flush with polished PVP shooters, and trying to compete there with such a limited team is not likely to be met with noteworthy success.

You don't have the manpower to develop co-op. Okay, so how do you expect to get more manpower? Is your PVP content making you any meaningful amounts of money? How can you hope to get more devs if you can't even pay yourselves off of this? I've looked at your Trello board; do you really think a drone, bullet-whizzes, and more camo is going to attract more players? What does your game do that ARMA hasn't already? They can even tick the sci-fi check-box through mods.

I remember a time when the development team was approaching a variety of publishers to secure the funding necessary to finish. Obviously, you guys weren't quite able to get it. But... why do you think that is? I'm just a pleb with no real expertise on the matter, but if I were a publisher I wouldn't be eager to throw money at anything other than a fleshed-out concept with a solid plan for reaching the finish line.

I humbly suggest that you guys stop trying to limp forward, sit down, and draft up a complete concept for a finished product.

- Write the story. All of it, start to finish. Write and develop your characters. Do lots of complete drafts and refine it until it's something that stands out next to other story-based games. Excise cliches with surgical precision unless they are absolutely necessary.
- Compile a realistic list of base-game content that should be ready for launch (weapons, gear, items, enemies, etc.) and create a full suite of concepts and designs for them.
- Compile a realistic list of mechanics used specifically to facilitate CO-OP play. (aggro + suppression systems, riot-shield partnering, ping signals, squad roles, etc.)

Note that when I say realistic, I mean "could reasonably be achieved within a fairly short development cycle."

In more blunt terms, do your homework. Create a detailed, PLAUSIBLE game-plan for churning out a finished product instead of continuing with the wand-waving inspirational BS marketing-speak that plagues most Early Access titles and usually amount to nothing but empty promises. Design a smaller game down to the last pebble instead of a grandiose game you won't ever finish. Then, perhaps, a publisher might take you seriously and you might be able to get this project off the ground.

If you still can't, then... Perhaps it's time to move on.

I don't think anyone here with a realistic world-view really expects IM to ever finish. It's impressive that this game isn't completely dead yet, and the concept is tantalizing, but you guys seemingly have no way out of your current predicament and obviously can't finish the game in a reasonable amount of time as it is.

I also don't think anyone wants to see you waste away your lives with performing CPR on this game. You guys clearly have talent and game development skills; go find paying game development jobs! When you've built up solid portfolios and made some more connections, perhaps you can come back.

Again, I'm by no means an expert and perhaps I'm just talking out my ♥♥♥ because you guys have already tried all this. But I took the time to write this because I care, and it might help you look at your situation from a different perspective.

As an uninformed outsider looking in, I don't see anything useful. I see a lot of meaningless busywork that shows you're still trying, but won't actually get you much closer to your goal. Don't waste your time with it. Figure out how you can use your time to actually reach that goal.

I don't mean to be insulting, rude, or belittle your hard work and commitment. Please don't take offense to anything I've written, because it's not meant to hurt you. I'm just trying to be real with you, and I would love to see you succeed.

Oct 26, 2018 @ 8:53pm
In topic Disconnecting should NEVER punish.
Originally posted by SS:
Since when was it normal to punish someone for NOT participating when they CHOOSE to?


IT IS A GAME; NOT SERIOUS. People should be able to leave.

The simple reality of the mechanic is that it is not aimed at punishing YOU specifically. It is aimed at punishing rage-quitters to *hopefully* increase the number of players who play to match completion.

Rage-quitting is a serious problem, and a potential bane of any fighting game's livelihood. The game simply isn't fun if you can't win because players disconnect with no consequence if they're about to lose.

In other words, it's a mechanic designed around the community's lowest common denominator (the sore loser) and players like you are simply collateral damage.

The solution to your problem is not removing the punishment, but rather giving you tools to avoid matching with those players again. A "block" or "ignore" type function. Failing that, they could modify the end-of-round behavior to prevent additional inputs.

It's like that in Libra of Soul - the match ends immediately upon K.O., so the only time it's possible to hit someone after winning is when you land an attack with multiple hits from a single input. This would also make it impossible to teabag.
Aug 28, 2018 @ 6:13pm
In topic No sandbox or casual servers? No servers at all?
The game is about as close to "balanced" as you can reasonably expect out of any game; balance will arguably never be "perfect." Once you get a few matches under your belt and start unlocking the various upgrades, you should very quickly grow accustomed to having tons of fun as either Diver OR Shark.

The issue with Depth is twofold:

1. A skill ceiling that is simply too high for a game with no official competitive scene (it's not difficult or irrational to confuse highly-skilled players with hackers), which makes the game fairly inaccessible to newbies, and

2. A fairly small playerbase. It's big enough that repeat matches aren't all that common, but needing to wait several minutes to queue into a game that you have decent odds of getting stomped in can be a turnoff for many.

Needless to say there are a variety of sub-problems like no ELO system and very narrow gametype selection, but these are rather secondary to the main 2 I listed IMO. For example, an ELO system would mean nothing without more players to fill each matchmaking bracket and more modes would also require more players.

Megalodon Hunt is by no means a terrible mode, but it's dead mostly because everybody queues for Blood and Gold to avoid waiting for hours to get a match.
Jul 26, 2018 @ 6:30pm
In topic Last Tide, a new game from Digital Confectioners

I strongly disagree.

First, there is no "shark team." It is simply something players who die can participate in while they wait (if applicable) for the round to end. Also note that it is not a 1:1 ratio of dead players controlling sharks... only a few at a time, picked at random.

Second, I never suggested that the shark players would have abilities on-par with sharks directly from Depth. There's no reason to assume they would necessarily be as strong.

Third, in what universe have you encountered Depth players quitting due to not getting shark? I see occasional ragequits but anyone who cares about playing shark typically knows to queue as shark...

Fourth, shark players would add a (IMO) much needed twist to help differentiate this game mechanically from other BR flicks. Sure, there's a bigger verticality element to it due to being set underwater, but from what they've shown the gunplay (which is what will really drive the PVP) doesn't look all that special.

With a few player-controlled sharks capable of acting unpredictably, the game will have an added element of tension that would be missing from purely AI sharks once players grow accustomed to the AI behavior.

Maybe the devs have tricks up their sleeves that would make these points moot, but from what I've seen on the store page King Tide looks pretty bland. You could tell me it was an update for Shark Attack Deathmatch 2 and I'd believe you no problem.
Jul 25, 2018 @ 7:58pm
In topic Last Tide, a new game from Digital Confectioners
I think not having shark players is a missed opportunity.

It might be neat to allow players who have been killed to occasionally and temporarily assume control of a shark instead of sitting out the rest of the round (unless it's more of a die-and-disconnect deal).

Also kinda disappointing to see everything all bright, crystal clear, and shiny... but maybe that's just the demo map.
Dec 20, 2017 @ 8:07pm
Pretty sure naming-and-shaming is against Forum TOS, please report them through official channels and leave it at that.
Dec 17, 2017 @ 1:55pm
In topic role playing idiots
Can we stop the scapegoating, please? The RPers don't actually harm the game (coming from a non-RPer).

The RPers are the majority population because the actual game is pretty bland so nobody really plays it for its serious game modes. As a shooter, PC:E is mechanically pretty dull. It's got dinosaurs, sure, but there are other big dino-based games on the market now so that's not enough anymore.

The dino experience also really doesn't differ all that much from the human experience. This game could stand to learn a lot from Depth when it comes to establishing a good atmosphere for the asymmetrical experience. Neither is perfect, but Depth at least stands out more as unique.
The high skill ceiling is definitely hurting the game. It's not like the ceiling is inherently a BAD thing; being able to design a game with that degree of flexibility is an incredible accomplishment and the devs deserve plenty of kudos for it. However... the player dynamics that sort of skill ceiling engender really aren't a good fit for Depth's sort of population.

If this game had a huge professional competitive scene, that skill ceiling would make for immensely entertaining and variable matches that would keep the game's livelihood going regardless of some marginal playerbase losses here or there. People would continue play simply because it was popular and visible, kinda like LoL.

Depth DOESN'T have a huge competitive scene, though, so when you have established players curbstomping newbies to the point that it arguably DOES seem like hacking to the uninitiated that just drives players away. Is this something EVERY skilled player does? Not by a long shot. But a few bad experiences are going to be bad enough that they outweigh all the comparatively less-bad experiences.

The high skill ceiling also isn't Depth's only problem. The comparative lack of variety (even if Blood & Gold is a gem) eventually gets old, so it's mostly something best played on-again-off-again when it suits your fancy. That's also fine... but it's not ideal for a multiplayer game that depends on a thriving community for available matches.

All in all, Depth is a great game that I wish more people played and appreciated. At the same time it's got a few neat traits that work against its success moreso than for it.
Nov 13, 2017 @ 5:57pm
In topic Thinking of getting this game...
I think it's perfectly fair to recommend against picking up this game at this point, even if the justifications are a little off.

Development is not dead, but came VERY CLOSE to dead and the game in its current state is rather threadbare. If it were me, I would watch from the sideline and make my investment once ZPS had regained a solid team of PAID staff.

And don't give me any crap about how the devs need sales to make money. That's obvious, but they would need new sales on a MASSIVE scale to support themselves... not just a few players here or there buying out of curiosity because fans duped them into it with praise (no matter how accurate the praise).

The game is hanging by a thread. It seems to be recovering, and I HOPE it does... but IMO it is not a wise purchase at the moment. ZPS needs to get all the PVE fundamentals into place and start some serious storytelling to attract new players en masse.
Aug 31, 2017 @ 12:31pm
In topic Let's Get Real
Originally posted by Cyanic-Ember:

I don't think they're necessarily short-sighted or imprudent. More far-sighted and excitable. But what you said is completely reasonable...

The majority of their PR disasters have stemmed from decisions that any semi-conscious person with a minimum understanding of the circumstances could have predicted would go over poorly.

Even granting that there was solid reasoning behind those decisions (e.g., Paid DLC to give new content to consoles, which didn't have access to mods) that just means some simple explanation beforehand could have quelled much of the backlash before it began.

This tells me that WC is
a) short-sighted and imprudent,
b) has PR that sleeps on the job, or
c) worst-case scenario seriously didn't think they were doing anything perceivably wrong.

I'm glad we can discuss this civilly. :)

Edit: completed partially-written train of thought.
Aug 30, 2017 @ 9:25pm
In topic Let's Get Real
I agree that Studio Wildcard is made more of shortsightedness and... imprudence than greed and scandal, and I certainly agree that a good deal of the community is over-entitled.


I don't think that you can say much better about yourself. Your entire complaint is that people's opinions do not align with your own. Let's look at this more closely without projecting our own frustration onto those opinions.

No, people do not have some inalienable right to any specific degree of optimization, but it DOES have a profound impact on the perceived quality of the game, AND FOR GOOD REASON. A game needs to run relatively smoothly for most people to find it enjoyable, and it is NOT REASONABLE for a game to require enthusiast hardware to achieve smoothness. Where you draw the line is somewhat flexible, but expecting everyone to pony up for a 1080Ti or swallow substandard performance is ignoring reality. Nobody wants to buy a game they can't run, so recommending against ARK for performance reasons makes perfect sense.

On a side note, 60FPS is actually a fairly important benchmark. 30FPS, the more long-running standard quickly gives me headaches while 60 causes no adverse effects. The difference is noticeable.

You also have to accept that ARK is not some flawless paragon of a game. Yes, there are some out there who have wrung 8,000+ hours out of it, but that's largely because ARK is designed as a time-consuming game. Taming certain creatures takes hours by default, and let's not get into the rabbit hole that is breeding. When you strip away the dynamics that come from the PLAYERS, at its core ARK is a very simple and barebones farming grind of a game. Combat is simplistic, creature behavior is noticeably robotic, and the actual survival mechanics are so insignificant they may as well not exist.

ARK has a lot of content. ARK has an active community. ARK is potentially very pretty for some. Unfortunately, these things alone do not a good game make. Just look at Warframe... and that game does it potentially for free. Not saying that the games are 100% directly comparable, but the similarities mentioned are relevant.

The ARK devs said for the longest time that they needed to finish adding content to the game and then they would address optimization. For the game to go full-release without optimization is disappointing. It underscores the devs' seeming inability to prioritize and their tendency to wander between half-finished tasks.

I mean really, what would be better for the game at this point? A cute otter? Or improvements to terrain shadows that help them eat less than 20FPS when switched on?

I understand that the devs will continue to patch and improve the game post-release, but to suggest that these criticisms of the game are unfair is dishonest.
Showing 1-20 of 918 entries