It’s mind boggling to me that in this day and age, an explicitly co-op game is designed as if… we haven’t had lobby creation and browsing systems since the 90s.
Guess what we did.
In reality it should be;
Player wants to host game
Chooses map
Chooses mods
Chooses difficulty
Public or private set
Event or non-event
Game is browsable in a list and people can join
Host player chooses when to start
What is frustrating, is all of these games lately over the last decade, are made by a group of people who keep re-designing the wheel.
We’ve had the wheel for a long time folks, please just stop. The proper shape is ROUND.
But, it appears to me that Far Shark is unable to create a lobby browser, so the least they can do, is give us checkbox options like we already have.
I don’t see the difficulty to NOT click quickplay and to choose a mission.
Considering any change, even tiny, results in 3 to 9 months of works for Fatshark… I would say that they have so many things to fix that fixing non broken things should not be on the list.
This is the party finder feature that is not entirely functional…
And that’s the perfect example on what they should focus.
quickplay is still how most people play the game, havoc is on life support already because it doesnt have easy access options.
you’ve seen how many threads were up about the no backfill issue.
I really dont get it, whenever someone makes a thread about any QoL issue in the game or any improvement every response on the forum is “I dont have this issue, thats your problem, NO! thats a feature actually!”
Makes it much harder to find full teams in unpopular hours. For EU zone it’s late night-early mornings, especially on working days.
A lot of people enjoy being sent to failing matches others gave up on and left and turning the tides, saving such games. It’s a lotta different and rewarding experience
Hilariously, so far all of the arguments against a singular OPTIONAL checkbox, are the following;
FatShark is too inept to create it and it will destroy the game
The game is already on life-support because of how slapshod, sloppy, and convoluted the current interface is, please don’t do it because it will make it worse.
No one is saying remove the quickplay button.
The whole original point of this post is to simply add a checkbox option in the terminal options, like how there is for the campaign missions.
But because the game is apparently already on life-support and fatshark is unable to professionally accomplish anything, everyone is jumping to conclusions about a simple request.
Thank you (and everyone else) for the support. I find some of the “arguments” here amusing, to say the least.
I mean how difficult can it be to add one button to the mission board menu, soneone had a good idea to have it reset on every event, thank you for that, it’s the way it should be.
I believe in freedom of choice, and yes, while I can “click any mission I like” (lol), there are a lot of times when I play with people who are “up for whatever, except maelstrom or the event”, so quickplay is the most natural option.
But as it is now, it’s like playing russian roulette with a lasgun, you’re going to get the event sooner or later, and I simply don’t get these “giving people more freedom will kill the playerbase” or “having options is a bad thing and too much unnecessary work for FS” -comments, as they have all failed to explain HOW the playerbase will get wrecked for giving people more freedom.
It seems to me that some people are thinking more about their own agenda than what is really best for the Darktide commynity.
Hmm I don’t know about adding this option would kill the playerbase, but I’d rather stop playing until the event is over and skies are clear from players yeeting over gangplanks. Just saying.
This is a weird thing to say. It’s not clear to me that the consensus view on “good” for the Darktide community is allowing players to opt out of the events. A few steam community posts do not, by far, represent the median Darktide player. Couching your position in the rhetorical framing of “player freedom” does not make the thing you’re advocating for objectively or clearly good. If scant evidence and weak argumentation are what distinguishes someone posting with a personal agenda, then my recommendation would be to do some self-reflection.
Not sure why you have an issue with this when clearly this is just a suggestion is to make participation of the event optional.
Not even sure why we even need to go through some sort of democratic process to be heard? Or are you implying we shouldn’t say anything (feedback, suggestions etc.) because people like us who wants to opt out of the event are what you consider “the minority”, that is why we don’t deserve to be heard because we don’t belong in the median?
FYI this is how you kill a game’s playerbase more effectively, something you should reflect about.
For the most part I do agree with you, but because of the change to Auric we absolutely should have a modifier opting system (if we can’t have a lobby browser, of course). I love me some Auric high-intensity, and regular matches do not hit the same for me at this point in my Darktide career.
I play in the SEA/Oceania region and it’s a gamble whether or not you can find any matches in progress at all outside of peak (and even that’s not guaranteed). If you’re not using quickplay chances are you’ll be playing with bots for a good while (hello, can of worms).
This is what the mission board looks like for me right now:
Note the lack of high intensity missions, and plentiful lights out… Now if I quickplay, I’m either chucked into a match or I start a random one and be alone for a while. Either way it’s a lot harder to jump into a high-intensity match than it was before the Auric change. I’m glad there’s a campaign, more maelstroms is great, and I’ve been loving the events, but outside of those experiences it’s been a great big step back in the fun department from when all Aurics were high intensity.
At this point if there was a button to queue for ONLY high-intensity I would smash it so hard my finger would hurt.
My point is that everyone involved is advocating for what they want and to say that arguments against an suggestion are to be dismissed as agenda pushing is lazy. I also am not writing as if my counter-argument is representative of some widely held perspective as OP has done now a couple times. So no, I’m not advocating for some democratic process of game design or silencing of the minority. I’m suggesting that OP should properly weigh how much a few data points from a few online moaners actually represent a community-wide sentiment and from that not extrapolate what’s best for the community.
So you’re here to argue about arguing about your own viewpoint that you do not share with the OP.
This is kinda like talking about a car, all of it’s parts, how it functions, oh and it has a blue bumper but the car itself isn’t blue, and a person who is color blind is arguing that it’s green.
The bumper.
Let’s also consider one more thing;
How many players actually come to the forums, make an account, and express their opinions versus the majority who do not?
It is a majority that do not do so, if you think otherwise it’s a delusion.
Case in point; a large portion of players mash button play now.
They do so in many games, and most of the time, getting them to setup yet another system requiring a login & password and all the jazz around that…
…this is why customer service is practically dead.
Too much of a hassle to get customer service
Company / Product maker sheltered behind too many walls
Be thankful any of us is giving any of our time at all, discussing what might help make the game better.
I already made my point on the merits of the suggestion. I don’t need to be condescended at by the Lorax of the DT community to tell me I’m arguing a bad faith position due to some ulterior agenda. Not convinced by my argument? Fine, agree to disagree. But categorizing disagreement as “amusing” and motivated by “agenda” is not to be left unaddressed. It’s not as if you’re innocent of meta argumentation in this thread either.
While I like previous events current one make me actually agree on adding option to disable event on missiom map after getin it done, but I will go further and propose add option to filter missions to from QP.
OK, so I read the whole discussion through (yes, every single post), and what I can gather from that, is that there are a good amount of people who support this idea, and one guy with a whole lot of (nothing) to say, and a serious attitude issue.
I disagree with that characterization lol. Dizzy is bringing up a pretty valid point: that there is definitely a threshold at which giving players more control over what they’ll QP into will negatively affect the available pool of QP players that can fill any given match.
It’s a valid concern - one that FS is definitely sensitive to - and he’s defending himself because of some (sadly) standard poor forum etiquette thrown at him.
Right now the Battle for Tertium flag is only on the Quickplay Settings page which has no reason to be opened otherwise. The only way you would know that it has been added is if you read the patch notes for a hotfix. You set it a single time and then never think about it again because it’s hidden in a menu that has two other options that you really have no reason to interact with. If you know it exists and are affected by campaign missions, you set it and forget it.
Adding a secondary flag will encounter the same issue unless the QP ux was changed in some fashion. Basically for this “affected” player base, they have the habit of hitting quickplay to find a mission and it works until there is an event they really dislike. An event filter on QP would be discovered by some subset of those users and then set once and forgotten. It’s impossible to verify any strong claims here without the data but based on the current ux and that it’s very unlikely for people to change the setting once “pleased” with the results, the number of players who will be meaningfully removed from the event queue for this event and all future events would be greater than the number of players who will leave or grief a game.
Anecdotally, in 41 attempts at the event (all by QP), I did not experience a single griefer and only 3 where leavers were an issue (of the type that just quit when they go down for the first time), which is baseline for any mission right now. Again I’m just not convinced this is a widespread issue. The events are already optional in the sense that if you click anything on the mission select screen but “Quickplay” or “Special Event” that you will be put into a non-event mission. There are also separate discussions about leaver penalties that would also address this but be applicable to every mission type.
The feedback that FS should be taking from this event is 1) explosions in this game kind of suck ass and are anti-fun and 2) don’t make events centered around suck ass mechanics.
Yeah, haha, I was kidding (obviously, lol). I can’t see why giving players a choice to opt out of events they will leave on the second they find out they are playing the event can be a bad thing.
Please elaborate if you have further insight.
By my experience, it’s been more of a rule of thumb than an exception (specially with this event) that the people who simply do not like the event, will either leave on the start, or worse, rage quit when they get yeeted off the map etc.
As someone smarter than me kindly pointed out, having filters in Quickplay would actually make things better and help people get in to the kind of matches they actually want to participate in.
I for one simply don’t see how this would adversely affect Quickplay (or “kill the playerbase”), I sure know I’ve had my fair share of people leaving, just because it’s an event mission, and you don’t have to read far in to any Darktide related forum to see plenty of “this event is ****” etc posts, so why not just give people the chance to opt out?
This is not a new issue, there have and will be events that people just don’t like, or don’t want to play in Quickplay after they have finished it. It was the same in Vermintide, so same old, same old.
Oh yes, and I do know that I’ve had some (very) stupid ideas in the past, with which most I don’t even agree anymore myself, so while I appreciate the effort, digging out my whole forum history does not count as an “argument”, lol.
