I appreciate you’re standing in for a hypothetical playergroup that doesn’t exist, but try doing a mission that isn’t auric maelstrom and check out how many headshot kills you’ll progress through in total. Spoilers: It’s far less than the 460 counted in auric maelstrom in the example of this thread. Depending on difficulty, on malice and heresy it’s probably less than half. So we’ll say 40 missions for this, being generous and generalizing difficulties that new players play.
Then you consider how much plasteel (as a standin for all the rewards, since they’re in proportion) those players would make off 40 missions regardless. In the OPs example it’s 21 missions for 18k plasteel. In this case, if the ratios are still the same (I didnt play sub damnation in a long long time) then you’re ending up with 40 missions for 33% less on heresy, and for roughly half on malice. So if you’re playing these difficulties or a mix thereof you’re ending up with something like 20k-25k plasteel anyway, martyrs skulls etc depending.
In other words new players get even LESS out of this. Crazy how the hypothetical playergroup you’re championing gets absolutely reamed by this event moreso than the auric maelstrom players. This isn’t even considering the people who get reamed the hardest: damnation players who play low int and non-histg, those end up playing an increased amount of missions but make the same material gains as auric maelstrom players (even more infact due to the quickplay bonus), meaning they make even MORE crafting mats inherently and as such get proportionally even less.
Huh! Looks like veteran players actually benefit the MOST from this event, proportionally, due to the nature of the event counter. Yet somehow their opinion on it being unrewarding doesn’t count. Weird.
Of course Jakal didn’t reply when I made that point, and I don’t expect one from you either, since you already ignored it when replying to him anyway. Way easier to just stick onto the same angle you can’t actually defend.
As for what I would’ve done with this event, just one example view of one page from the portraits in the gamefiles that are yet to be used:
Notice the scroll bar. The game has tons of already finished portraits to give out rewards that are actually atleast unique. Additionally, giving out titles for this kind of thing would be vaguely interesting and trivial. Plenty of ways to implement this in a way where people actually care about the rewards a little. You could even do this ONTOP of the crafting material rewards if you wanted to be extra generous. It doesn’t actually cost them anything to do it. It would please both the hypothetical group you’re rooting for aswell as the actual real players who think the 10-20% more crafting material reward for 20-40 games (at best) is sorta lame.
This is why developers should be playtesting their own product as well as engaging with the community they’re servicing so they don’t get ‘out of touch’.
This is the same company that said ‘we don’t give people what they want, we give them what they need’ before releasing an update that I’ve been told was an utter garbage fire. Jakal takes after the devs quite well.
Most of us have been here in one way or another since the Vermintide 1 days, some perhaps even War of the Roses and Lead and Gold.
We put forth our criticism precisely because we know how much better things could be. We don’t want to see Fatshark become another Activision Blizzard and know they put out unique gameplay with unique ideas.
NGL if launch had included something along the lines of ‘every time you finish a mission you get aquilas’, most of the accusations of greed and incompetence wouldn’t have flourished as they have. It’s rare I find someone complaining about HD2 having a rotating shop or having premium currency, because you can grind that currency fairly easily.
Your language makes me curious. I understand the concept of having non-legitimate, disingenuous reviews in cases such as F2P games. Or possibly on sites that do not require the user to own the product they are reviewing. But what about paid games on platforms like Steam that enforce reviewing products the account holder owns?
Is there some prevailing industry view that distinguishes between ‘review bombing’ and ‘legitimate’ mass negative reviews? Because in my interpretation of the term, and how it seems to be used in media, any overwhelmingly negative collection of reviews counts as a ‘review bomb.’ Regardless of where those reviews come from.
There isn’t a formal difference between review bombing and authentic mass negative reviews, and infact devs and game journalists exploit that fact to conflate one with the other as it suits the marketting team. On non-F2P games anyway as you mentioned.
I think realistically (and arbitrarily) I start considering it actual review bombing if a huge e-celeb organizes it. Otherwise it’s just authentic community reaction.
I have only seen a few cases of what I would genuinely call “review bombing”.
Without mentioning any specifics, they have most often come when a person from a company has made an off colour remark on a social platfrom.
Following said remark, a lot of reviews on the product tend to focus on the person rather than the product itself.
Outside of that, “review bombing” just seems to be used as an excuse to hide negative reviews (especially true for the steam platform).
If rumours are true they are working on a new game using the Unreal engine I’m not buying it. I’ve resolved to not buy anything from FatShark again unless they change their colors.
They need to launch a finished product.
They need to actually start communicating with their playerbase.
They need to listen to their playerbase.
They need to deliver what they promise (quarterly classes cough) or at the very least communicate when plans change.
That said, I still may not buy their new game if it’s based on AoS, which I hate, lol. The above is just the bare minimum.
It’s interesting Arrowhead is doing so much better. They’re like a “How to make a good game and communicate with your playerbase 101” while FatShark is the complete opposite - “Overpromise, underdeliver, shut down communication when you get push-back 101”.
This is the answer. I consider reviewing bombing an orchestrated attempt versus players expressing genuine discontent with the game. My opinion only of course.
They train them to talk like that because for a big majority of the population, it’s disarming and helps with communicating - but I think it’s a valuable skill to know when to drop that and just be up-front.
Apparently the skulls event has been updated on the backend with a higher goal, more stuff, and a longer timer. Same old resources, just more of them than before.
