That would be 1.1k/h in October 2017 to 4.3k/h at release in October 2015. It sums up to about 75 %. However, it seems there was an update one or two months before. So about 80 % player loss at that time seems a reasonable number.
2 Likes
all of which might be valid
except
except
except
you can simply go back and read the forums at the time. there were literally 1000s of posts saying exactly what I’m saying now.
in fact I remember your posts from then adelion.you were in favor of the way/direction things were going then, which is more or less how they are now. you used to argue that this route wouldn’t kill the game then when there were 70k players/hr and so many screaming the game was going bad and you are still spewing that line now when there are 3.5k/hr.
if anything this is a complete repudiation of your opinion. if you want to check your posts around nov-dec 2018 is the relevant time span and is rather interesting.
I did say that I like the direction the game is taking. However, that was end of 2019, so about 7-9 months ago. And I stand to these comments. And in the time from them we have seen a slight increase in player numbers.
The 70k/h were ONLY in March 2018. Only there and while i did post in the forum it was less about the general direction and more about balancing and other stuff.
You can prove me otherwise by linking posts from that time. There might be some similar to what you express like me saying that I favour the nerfing of ranged meta and also that I liked the 1.4 Beta (which was then changed before release to something less likable). Also comments I stand too. But the comment about the direction the game is going is after Combat 2.0 because I really didnt like the months before the release of WoM and the combat changes.
Your comparison of the 70k players to 3.5 k still doesnt function because the 70k was a very short time of a month after a release and was never going to stay anyway. There were not thousands of complaints asking for the removal of the active skills. It just doesn’t add up.
Okay, I checked the timeframe November-December 2018 and did like 5-10 posts of which two were complaining that the game is to easy. And a lot of other posts following in the months after were either arguing with people who can’t read or about general approaches like the mod sanctioning. The comments about the direction really came far later (end of 2019). And the increase in player numbers support that claim. I really think you are missing a year here.
You imply “superpowers” were just introduced because they were cool, after which the devs created a problem unwittingly, which they then tried to solve by throwing just more stuff at us, with unforseen negative consequences. I don’t believe that.
The “superpowers” were most likely created deliberately, knowing full well they needed to be compensated with more & stronger enemies, but with the goal of creating more diverse gameplay than V1. And, as you mentioned yourself, V1 is not really more or less difficult than V2. But V2’s gameplay is undoubtably deeper and more diverse.
And you argue FS should adjust by making the players less powerful, instead of the enemies stronger. What you probably mean is that the relative power if an enemy unit vs. a player character needs to be changed in favor of the enemy unit, instead of throwing moar enemy units at us. But whether you do that by increasing the strenght of the enemy or decreasing the strenght of the player doesn’t really matter. However, FS already made such a move before: 2.0. 2.0 made individual enemies relatively more dangerous by giving them more stagger resist, cleave mass, & hitpoints. They also introduced bonus damage for staggered enemies. Both these moves did exactly what you suggest, basically.
We all know the reactions that got, but I am actually one of those that thought the direction of 2.0 was definitely a positive change. I get the feeling you’d think that as well, actually. However, the problem it had was that they didn’t also compensate by making the enemies less numerous, which resulted in a more difficult game overall, and with no reduction intechnical issues because of too many enemies. That all resulted in one group of people complaining about change in gameplay (the people that loved the wade-through-bigger-hordes-as-a-powerful-player style game more), while the group that would have loved this change in direction was also not satisfied because of more difficulty overall. Combining that with bugs, some frustrating aspects of Beastmen design, and weaves not being completely what a lot of people were expecting and / or wanting, and you had an overall negative reaction to 2.0. I think FS interpreted that cumulative negative reaction as a reaction on their direction towards a more tactical, less wade-through-a-screen-full-of-hordes type of game. Their changes after 2.0 sort of reflect that, as their buffs to the power of individual enemies were dialed back a little.
So I guess in the end I agree with your desire for a more tactical game with less, but relatively more powerful, enemies. Since just throwing more weak enemies at us devalues the impact of the enemies and causes technical difficulties (which are the greatest problem about Vermintide), as you said as well. But I disagree with your idea to achieve this by taking away “superpowers”, because that takes away from gameplay depth. I’d rather they solve it by sending numerically less, but more individually powerful and complex, enemies at us, with more diverse enemy compositions. More gameplay depth, less bugs, same ‘difficulty’.
N.B.: I don’t want damage sponge enemies, if anybody thinks that’s what I mean. Instead I’m thinking more along the line of the stagger-damage system, and more complex enemy behaviour / moves, and such.
2 Likes
yeah. i know what you mean. i liked the 2.0 as well. i remember the outcry in the forums tho as well. and a ton of people got really upset on both sides and it got really, really nasty. which is a shame of course because both groups love the game but wanted it to go in diametrically opposite routes.
yes, i was in favor of the more complex system. i really enjoyed it. and yeah i think this was when the game sorta veered as a reaction. imo this was about when things started to go south.
1 Like
@ adelion,
sorry didnt mean to come across so harsh in the post. its hard sometimes to judge it at the time. reading it now i m sorta . i just remember you as one of the ones arguing in favor of the more hack n slash approach.
which is ok. if you like the game, im happy you like it.
i wish the game had a little less mindless slashing and a little more tactical combat to it but yes. i think i might have been wrong by a year. i was out walking the dog and on the mobile and its very very possible.
i think im getting old 
Hm, I think you got the wrong impression then. As I said, I am not a big fan of the months before WoM which in my opinion was where the game was the most slashy. The elements are still there and I think the power baseline for Cataclysm is still to high, but overall Combat 2.0 and talent rework has done a lot of good things for the game. There are more tactical elements available again. to emphasize: I am against mindless left-clicking. Just check my forum posts filled with my hate-campaign against Axe&Falchion as well as Swift Slaying (I am not done on that front -__-)
Like I said, I like the direction the game took with 2.0 because it slightly toned down the mindless left-click to win (although there are still weapons they ignored attuning in that regard). That is why I am a bit anxious towards the potential balance beta for Season 3. I WANT more balance and some tweaks for talents. However, I want FS to tone down the overperformer while improving the underperformer so that we reach a broad middle ground. And for the talents I wish for some moderation because a lot of stuff is already working quite well if you adjust it.
We are all getting old.
3 Likes
My main concern with the next BBB is the first B. I thought Fatshark learned to patch things a bit at a time. I see no advantage to a big balance patch compared to a few smaller ones. They even recognized so. We’ll see what happens.
I disagree. Sometimes problems come from interacting systems. If you change something later on, it will affect everything else as well. Might be better to just change everything you want to change, so it’s immediately clear what the interactions are.
1 Like
It’s been pretty disastrous the last time they tried, but that’s certainly a point.
For balancing purposes at least, thought, having a trickle of patches would make for easier feedback and balancing.
I think it’s been specifically disastrous before when they made the changes directly in live, without using a beta. It’s ok if you break a beta a bit because the live branch is still there so nobody loses anything.
well, that’s kinda true, but it’s missing the point. When they last broke the game with WoM it took them months to return the game to a working state, so it’s not just a matter of breaking it live or beta, unless we can have a beta for an extended period of time (which in reality we don’t as it’s splitting the playerbase)
I’m handling a good chunk of the french new players (on facebook, discord and various gaming forums).
And I can tell that very rarely a player leave about the bugs. It’s an issue that only a veteran player will feel, as a new one is mostly incapable of even telling that there’s a sound when he will get hit (for example).
It’s just than the usual type of players will play all maps of the campaign. Maybe try some other chars, and will feel either bored or incapable, at some point, to reach further difficulty.
I even saw players who were afraid to tackle legend without having red items.
That only shows, that no matter how much FS scales up the power and the action, if the gameplay loop doesn’t capture the player, no matter how much new content they churn out and ignore technical issues, they cannot retain the new players.
They can’t retain ‘all’ new players. But I do think replayability can be in cause. I do think that meteo effects, twitch mode, and new careers provide more replayability.
I tend to introduce twitch mode shortly to new players so they can feel some ‘peaks of difficulties’ even in veteran. And it helps a lot.
Randomizing way more the map, and visibly.
And we’re back to the old case, where stacking various mutators / gameplay elements / challenges / call it whatever, increases replayibility and thus retainment. And it’s still being ignored by FS.
1 Like
Several elements are pointing at FS tackling thoses replayability ‘issues’
Meteo help to provide a new atmosphere to existing maps
New careers help to provide new gameplay variability
Scripts for end events being tackled to also provide a bit more variation is also on the good track
Of course there could still be plenty to do but ‘better is the enemy of good’ so let’s see what happens with thoses first changes.
They last broke the game when season 2 was released. The beta felt really good in all aspects (especially specials working as intended), but when the beta was over and went live it was a buggy mess again.
I don’t know which option is better, but my main wish for the game would be a more solid patching experience. It’s taking so much dev time and playerbase good will when the patches keep re-introducing old bugs and issues.
2 Likes
Code versionning is a long topic and an issue already raised many times on this forum.
I feel it’s getting better but after each patch, look out for previously fixed bugs that might occur again… And report them on the forum.
Right now I m more concerned now about the next versus mode.
I really loved it in Left 4 Dead and ended up only playing that mode to be honest. Can’t wait for it xD
I don’t know when the development of this “feature” started but it’s not a small one and long lasting branches, (if they are not properly merged along the main “live” branch) are a pain to merge.
I ll just drop that link here that explains the process https://datasift.github.io/gitflow/IntroducingGitFlow.html
Git flow is a good exemple in this kind of environment but there are other kind of branching models.
You also have to take into account that even if a dev knows how to use git, if it’s not enforced properly by management (and you have to allow time on the process) It’s not gonna work out. It only works if everyone in the team masters it. (you also have good developpers that mess things up because they want to add their code really fast without review…)
And to get back on track with the OP : I don’t think it’s time for Vermintide 3 yet.
Wait for versus mode and maybe new careers to show up. That’s the initial plan for Vermintide 2 : Keep adding stuff in it. All those features will be part of Vermintide 3 if they even plan on making a 3rd edition 
i’d hope they’d incorporate that dwarven snowtop level from vermintide 1. that level was badass
1 Like