A combination is needed. Giving feedback + not buying, otherwise fs will never know what the reason was their dlc didn’t sell alot. Is not buying the most effective way? Sure, is it the most effective way to make sure they put out dlc’s you’ll buy later? Not rlly.
I think that saltys voicelines are based on the Original lore of drachenfels where the enchanter was slayn . You can read parts of it when u Google it up if u dont got the roleplay books for this adventure. I think fs created a version of drachenfels here where the enchanter has recovered from warp or was summoned again after they visited there for the first time .So it makes sense after all
To be frank, I don’t think FS considers anything we all write here.
Its important to speak up about the things you want to see, or are upset about. Not buying something doesn’t communicate the things you would buy. If anything, it makes it less likely you’ll see the things you do want because DLC sales are what go back into the game, to fund further content production.
I think for me, the only thing that could have justified the GK choice was if they had cavalry in some capacity. Whether F were a lance charge with a pocket horse, or it mounted you for a bit and dying while mounted instead unmounted you and tossed you, kind of like the zealot save from death mechanic, idk. Its hard to imagine cavalry successfully implemented at all in VT2, which is why I think GK wasn’t a good choice mechanically.
I’m okay with a bit of a lore stretch for new quality gameplay, but in this case I don’t think that the distance of that stretch is giving us something unique enough to justify it.
I am excited for future subclasses. I think that for Kruber, a conversion to Sigmar was a lot more plausible than a conversion to The Lady of the Lake. I think that a Warrior Priest would add a lot more to gameplay because of the divine magic for ranged attacks and potential for Divine Fury to offer a unique passive. I don’t think Saltz would be likely to switch, and I don’t think Saltz’s personality would fit very well for a Warrior Priest, and that it fit better with Kruber’s soldier background/skillset. If it were added to Saltz though and the explanation were better than “because Sigmar” - I could buy that.
An engineer build for Bardin I’d buy. Tinkering in the keep between missions as a hobby yields results, gives him a couple new weapons. Combines his bomb build from Ranger Vet with his drakeweapons from IB. Potentially deploys mines or a turret somehow.
Its hard to think of a new class for Kerillian that isn’t too big of a stretch. Same with Sienna, its hard to think of a new spell type she could suddenly have that doesn’t involve chaos corruption, and we’d never get to play that because Saltz would execute her.
But more than anything, I want to see beastmen added again as a standalone enemy to more than just Dark Omens. Whether that means making most weaves have only Beastmen and reward cosmetics, or adding new maps with them, either works. Trim down the archer spawns on legend/cata so that they’re less numerous and/or will spawn closer together. The attack animation glitch has been fixed, as has their health/damage imbalance. At the end of the day, one new class is great, but the successful implementation of a new standalone enemy faction will mix up gameplay for everyone, better than anything else can. FS has a good one with beastmen, it just needs a little more tweaking. Don’t stop working on it!
I personally think you’d be suprised on how much they follow each feedback discussion. It’s difficult to know because they never respond or acknowledge anything on feedback, but they do read it, as they sometimes change stuff being discussed in feedback.
Statistically it doesn’t look like it, even if something they do coincides with something someone has said here. I think the community managers read a lot of the stuff we post, but those are not the guys who are making the game.
That is incorrect. You may not like the execution of their dlc content. But it’s all stuff that were undeniably asked for.
We want new maps: Shadows Over Bogenhafen (poor reception, everyone boo’d)
We want V1 maps: BtU (much booing)
We want new weapons: BtU (much booing, no more dual weapons)
Game too easy, we want rebalancing/we want new difficulty/we want new faction/we still want new weapons: WoM (much booing)
We want cosmetics: LE (much cheering, until the 4k shilling hats appeared)
Still want new maps, but it can’t be SoB, can’t be BtU, has to have a boss, has to be free, and we hate Beastmen: Drachenfels (deafening cheering, boss is a jerk, tho)
We want new characters, same ones always mentioned (Bretonnian, Skink, new wizard). We want new class, same ones always mentioned (wardancer, runesmith, engineer, different lore of magic, warrior priest): FS says no new characters, but here’s a Bretonnian expy with lore justification (character not even out and much booing)
Mostly being facetious btw, there’s been good things too, and just as many people happy with the changes and dlc. Still plenty to criticizedm but FS does respond to feedback.
I was just saying that they implemented some changes that were asked for in feedback threads to prove that they do read them. Community managers its their job to communicate between player and game devs, so you it doesn’t change if cm’s read feedback only, they do communicate it to the devs. I’m also not sure how you can statistically show that they read threads, they could read 10000 posts and only like 1 idea and implement that, how does that exactly show that they don’t read feedback. It’s just feels like they aren’t reading because of the lack of communication and drought periods without much communication.
And I am saying that if you count all the instances when we asked for something and got ignored, those hits listed above won’t look much better than a random guess. It’s like throwing an apple up and quickly sayin “I want it to fall down!”. That goes to say that most of those things were planned before we even started asking for them.
I agree that FS definitely reads the things we post, and tries to deliver.
Instead of responding, I think someone probably keep little lists of data with #'s of requests for certain things. And when they’re thinking about adding something new, that data is included and then cross referenced with what they have the resources to actually design, and what they can get away with lore-wise. Even if its a big stretch.
But I think that their actual choices are questionable. For example sure, there are people vocal about wanting challenge. But they added a whole DLC in WoM that catered to the most skilled players. Which means by very definition, a majority percentage of players are going to have a negative experience / tough time with that content. So how, on paper, did they think that would be a profitable design, regardless of the number of forum requests.
With Back to Ubersreik. They had the option to rehaul some of the maps and add better and more immersive things. Like a doomwheel encounter on Engines of War. Or even skaven bombers. But they didn’t, it was just a direct copy with the same number of maps as a regular DLC. Any DLC that adds no unique mechanics or bosses isn’t going to do much to mix up gameplay. Its just the same thing with a different background. Top that off with the fact that they’re already maps a lot of people have played many, many times, already. How did they think that would do well?
And as far as a new class. A sword wielding melee focused Kruber isn’t exactly the definition of new and unique content. But FS said themselves in the stream that the real reason they picked GK over everything else is because they just personally like Bretonnia and are biased lol. There’s also the point of modern investors to consider. WP is pretty heavy with Catholicism overtures. These days, who knows how investors feel about that sort of thing, if they think it might alienate players from other faiths and went with GK because the Grail story is at least normalized enough in Fantasy that its a little less of a trigger.
WoM, or rather Weaves was so misguded, that it didn’t resemble anything people asked for as challenge.
Sorry @Toastklotzi, I honestly didn’t catch that. I do think FS thinks the Enchanter is real and “alive”, I do believe it’s him we hear whispering to the characters. I don’t get why Saltzpyre used to belive in him (he was quite the lore-buff actually) and now suddenly denies his very existence, saying it’s never been any more than a myth
I don’t know, mate - this wasn’t what I said, so the question should be addressed to someone else? I said “statistically it doesn’t look like”.
You might be confusing temporal relationship between events with causal. If FS implements something after it has been asked for does not mean that they did it because it was.
Beastmen too were practically removed for being too difficult. They had a slight animation discrepancy that would cause you to still take damage if you blocked at the last second and had high latency.
But they also had too much health, did too much damage, etc, relative to the chaos/skaven of same difficulty tiers. Those complaints were just as high, and the unbalance was real. They still are beefy, though better balanced. And another complaint was that Archers on Cataclysm would spawn in ridiculous numbers pretty much everywhere, and it was a shitstorm. So now you’ve even got people complaining that cata is too hard with the hard new race. When that was exactly what the forum asked for.
Ranked weaves were made under the premise that these people who wanted cata had premade groups they usually played with, and it was a way to give those people, who as a whole on the forums showed no shortage of elitism, a way to brag and actually have their names on leaderboards.
But back to the heart of it all, the people who were most excited for beastmen were the fantasy fans who wanted to see more of the warhammer world brought to life. And all we got really was 1 unbalanced map. So even the people who wanted to defend FS were like uhhh?
Well, buggy isn’t exactly the same thing as difficult. They removed them because it didn’t make sense to have so many of them around on all maps and because they were janky AF.
Also, the first hit from the Spawn’s quick series still does damage before the correct animation frame - it was reported, but nothing was made to fix it or lower Spawn’s chances of spawning.
When people asked for more challenge, everyone wanted a deed rework, where they combine all game modes into one and you just can stack mutators to the adventure maps.
Even when they showed winds and the redesigned maps, everyone was hyped. As soon as they said that it will be static spawns everyone was dumbfounded and no longer interested.
Whenever people taled about new difficulty and cataclysm, they visioned the ONS mod. Current cata is just a pale imitation of that.
The bug was fixed. The reason people are vocal about complaints is because the people on forums are mostly vets who play cata. On cata, the archer spawns are out of control. That could be fixed pretty easily by adjusting the numbers specifically on higher difficulties, and/or making sure that they spawn closer together so its not coming from every direction.
But its the forums, so the way that you voice not liking something is “I HATE EVERYTHING ABOUT THIS SO MUCH ITS AWFUL REMOVE IT FOREVER OMG!!1one!” and FS did exactly that. Meanwhile on lower difficulties the archer spawn numbers are perfectly fine, and the majority of people are definitely not playing cata. So all of them lose beastmen, even the ones who paid to fight them. And are like wtf?
I agree 100% that it didn’t make sense for beastmen to be on so many of the other maps. They should be completely separate from the Skaven/Chaos. The fact it was all jumbled together made it a mess that was impossible to balance that way, and it kept Beastmen from standing out and being able to be their own unique thing.
It did make sense for them to populate forests though, like Athel Yenlui and Festering Ground. Having them as sporadic little blips now just gets lost in with the rest of the mission, and keeps them from being able to be memorable.
They’d have been great as an enemy type only in Weaves, because they don’t have disablers so you can play ranked weaves solo and it actually works. Its fine to have a challenging enemy in separate content like that, and the weave mechanics help flesh out the Beastmen’s limited unit roster. That or new maps that showcase beastmen, but because of how aggressive the feedback was on the forums, that is unlikely sadly.
The other thing is that most fantasy fans and warhammer fans HATE those mutators and modifiers. The additional challenge is fine, but there needs to be actual reasons for it. Why are we losing health periodically, for example. Why are skaven bombers showing up deep in locations that are supposed to be primarily or entirely Chaos? Why is someone randomly becoming a bomb? Instant immersion break. So no, definitely not everyone wanted that, just the people who still play that liked the onslaught mod wanted that. The countless other people who have stepped back from the game for now because it went in a direction they didn’t want, did not want that.
I think the whole mutators thing was more about those additional effects that Deeds apply - not the weekly challenges. Things like abduction, vanguard, Nurgle’s rot etc. - in my understanding those are the mutators everyone wanted to be able to apply at their leisure from day one when it became obvious that the current deed system was trash. One more thing for my argument by the way - this is one of the most ignored requests by the developers.
I can’t speak for everyone, of course. But its important to keep in mind that the number of people on the forums asking for something is only a very small percentage of people who own the game and it does not include the large number of people who bought the game as a fantasy co-op with RPG elements, and left as it progressed more in the direction of L4D. The number of requests for something can’t be measured as the majority of what people want, as most people have left the game. So clearly, what those still playing want doesn’t automatically line up with what those who left wanted. It stands to reason that often, it might even conflict.
The modifiers themselves are great. Its a matter of application.
For example, there’s a premise that Halescourge has created a poison mist on the Helmgart map, yeah? That’s a scenario where periodic health reduction makes sense. They could have even added the shadow weave mechanic recolored slightly green, to obscure vision at a distance.
The map is burning down, like on the weave of fire? That also makes sense for periodic damage. It makes sense that you wouldn’t find consumables or ammo on the level. Perfect on maps that are under fire like Fort Brachsenbrucke or Empire in Flames.
Skaven bombers? Vanguard? Seek and Destroy? Makes perfect sense on engines of war, or the skaven portion of Skittergate.
Lightning from the sky in the celestial weave? Slight recolor, slap it on The Screaming Bell. Add a rasknitt encounter with the Ogre at the end, and add double damage/health to elites. Now you’ve got a working screaming bell.
There were ways to apply the weave mechanics and combine them with deeds and weekly modifiers to end up with an incredibly immersive challenge designed for existing levels, and set them up with all sorts of interesting options going forward.
Instead weaves butchered the lore, split the playerbase, and nobody got what they wanted.
But they read it. How do you know you get ignored? It just feels like that, but they do read everything. If they would have to give their opinion on every single feedback thread it would be such a waste of time.
That’s not true. If you want an example: spear push feedback thread, they did change it after the post. Ranged cdr, changed after post. Were they thinking about it before? Probably but you don’t know that and it being changed pretty fast after the post makes me assume they do read it. Deed exploit change, plenty of feedback threads made after the change.