But HM has been in the game since the start, the beastmen haven’t. As such, in most maps they don’t fit. I’m not gonna repeat my arguments here, as it would be OT, but there’s a lot of players who disliked finding them on old maps and who would be so glad at having the options of disabling them. I for one have virtually stopped playing a game I spent 1.5k hours on, and I’m not gonna play it (or buy future DLCs) if this will be the state of the game, as I play it for the immersion and this broke it for me. I know I can disable the DLC but that’s a suboptimal route, as I’d have to restart it anytime I want to play weaves and cata (which I’d want to).
EDIT: You don’t find anything wrong with people wanting to uninstall a DLC they spent 20 dollars on?
Reading those comments oh wow did I went into overwatch or what? That kind of toxic is absurd, demanding from nestle cave and whinning, seriously?
Do you guys even know how programming is absurd with fixing, even ease stuff can produce tons of additional problems.
Good job FS hope you wont take those comments to heart and will still do Sigmar work, and don’t you dare crunch!
Let them whine, anyone with even gram of knowledge about your work will just patiently wait and report stuff thats are broken.
Well same arguments, in the lore, they DO fit, and they DO work with Chaos. So why not in a chaos/skaven alliance ?
The fact that you didn’t see them at the beginning have no incidence whatsoever, since repeating the mission, doesn’t mean, in the story, that you come back to it several time. A mission is a part of story that, in the story, you’re doing once. So, technically, beastmens didn’t “appear” out of nowhere, they were here to begin with, as others chaos enemies.
Now, if you don’t want them to appear, you already have the option to deactivate them, just disable the dlc.
Disabling the dlc will mean : Beastmens won’t be here, you’ll still have weapons, you won’t be able to access to cataclysm difficulty and weaves.
If you want to do thoses specifics modes and/or difficulties, activate them again.
Problem solved.
I mean, with all the work that need to be done (new content, balancing passes, fixes), I would vote 100 times to actually work on thoses rather than providing a checking boxes to disable specific parts of a specific dlc. (now if it’s easy to do, I won’t prevent them to do it, but if it does ask for a lot more work than necessary, I certainly will be against spending too much time on it)
The fact that it seems quite central to your enjoyment, is something I (and several others here) don’t get at all. Since you already have a way to disable it anyway.
You actually asked me to put a question about beastmen appearing on the old maps in the community poll. I did, and the majority approve. 20% didn’t, out of that 20% were people who wanted a unique beastmen story arc with their own maps.
I just can’t see this from your point of view. It would be like if new careers are added (which they are, first one coming SoonTM) and those careers can only be played on new maps that were released with them. So you can never load those careers into the old maps. That’s just silly…
BTW, thanks for the hotfix FS. I’ll test out some more twitch mode and update.
It’s not at all like new careers. It’s more like: fatshark decides to add undeads to the game (cool thing per se) and by making it so, you have the enemies in the old maps being undead, like you now can get full beastmen runs. Would the maps make sense then, storywise? No.
The argument “they can be allies lorewise” doesn’t make sense to me either: nurgle cultists and skaven can be allies as we have seen, but if they suddenly added chaos to VT1 too it wouldn’t make sense. It wouldn’t be inconcievable, but it still wouldn’t make sense storywise. It’s like that with the beastmen (or worse rather, as the dark omens map shows they aren’t exactly the best of pals).
We all play this game for our own reasons (IIRC you’re not a veteran of the first game yourself), some, like me, play it for the story. I respect your opinion, I ask that you do the same. I’ve devoted 15 hundred hours to it and it pains me to say this change makes me want to stop. As it’s something that could be easily fixed with a switch, as many have said, and some have asked, it’s something I find myself asking the developers for. Having to manually disable the DLC i’ve payed for to do it, locking me out of content i’d like to play (that is cata, as i don’t mind beastmen in weaves) is something i find inconvenient at best. So, again @Fatshark_Hedge is there currently any plan to change the way beastmen get spawned? or could we get a switch on map selection to have them or not if we own the dlc? It really is a deal breaker for me
I get what your point of view is, man, I think everyone does, but most people don’t agree, and it wouldn’t make sense business-wise. Hopefully they’ll implement an option to control what factions appear on what map, but it’s not too likely. Your best hope is probably a mod that allows this kind of control or to uninstall WoM.
Regarding the patch; that’s good, if it works, some comments aren’t giving me much hope, though I personally hadn’t been getting crashing issues. Mostly just glad to hear that there’s work being done on Beastmen right now.
@Palesz - I get you, man, I’m as annoyed about the needless changes of 2.0 breaking everything as you are, but unfortunately it’s the state of the game. I’m pretty damn sure at this point that FS knows people are pissed. The choices are pretty much roll with it or move on to a new game. They said that things were being “shaken up” internally in an earlier discussion, which is pretty corporatey talk for “major internal changes, heads are rolling”, so I think it’ll be worth seeing how things improve. This is the eleventh patch to 2.0 in around a month, so that’s good - and they have been more open.
Beastmen being part of a Chaos army (the Rotbloods) is not at all a stretch lorewise. It makes perfect sense, even on the old maps, in a way that Rotbloods in V1 wouldn’t. Not comparable things at all.
That being said, some tweaks to how they appear might be in order (as we discussed in the other thread). But them showing up on old maps in itself isn’t a problem for lore reasons and shouldn’t be immersion breaking at all.
Undeads are their own army so I do agree, it wouldn’t make sense, as Undeads do not work for Chaos. Beastmens, though, are a part of Chaos forces (this is the important point). Chaos is ALREADY in the game.
I mean, lore wise it makes perfect sense.
It’s just more varied enemies of the exact same army that show up.
Now, I’m respecting you, I just disagree that it’s immersion breaking, as it fits the story so far.
Now gameplay wise, it wouldn’t make sense as well. I won’t buy a dlc adding a whole new faction to see it on one map (or one difficulty).
I have the impression that in FS they don’t know what to do next with the game. Now there is a desperate attempt to save the image with Drachenfels maps. Drachenfels is ok but what’s next?
So far empty promises of changes to the mode which ALMOST NOBODY WANTS!
It’s some paranoia - we won’t give you new maps and story but we’ll give you changes to the content you don’t want.
And there are so many possibilities. I don’t know why some people in FS haven’t come up with the idea of doing a DLC or real expansion with a mini campaign containing several new maps, no matter what corner of the Warhammer world because bridge of shadows allows almost unlimited transport, with opponents and bosses and story plot dedicated to these maps.
In this case, we could visit the Land of the Dead, search the tombs and fight some Nehekhara forces, or visit the steamy forests of Lustria to find secrets in a forgotten Lizardman temple, or even jump with a frantic mission into the wastelands of Chaos, or venture into the dangerous areas of Naggaroth and escape from dark elves slave hunters. The sky is the limit here.
Instead of going into interesting and well-desired content they go to the trash that is basically a one-time experience and senseless grind. Because it’s cheaper? Because it’s less work? Seriously?
Someone gives you such great ideas or do you come up with them yourself? Or maybe you are too proud of listening to forum pleb, which often showed how cool ideas can be implemented into the game?
Ehhh … keep going and you’ll create another Frankenstein monster like WoM
Oh… and it’s great that updates come often but it’s a pity they are insignificant.
This is confirmed, they want to try some new stuff because “new maps” only won’t be enough to keep the game alive (as Vermintide 1 couldn’t)
So yeah, they need to somewhat make some sort of mode that would be able to keep the end game interesting.
Changing the mode “nobody wants” to a mode that “is fun to play” is a step. As a lot of work have already been done to this mode, it would be a bit dumb to throw this work away and focus some other mode that would provide the exact same stuff : “an end game content”.
I’m fine with them changing the mode to something more enjoyable (which is can be, really).
"Both those DLCs took our entire art and level design teams ~9 months (edit: this is from memory, more or less, it was too long is the point) each to produce. We simply couldn’t keep up with how fast our players wanted new content with that model and also fix bugs in levels. Further upping graphical fidelity in VT2 means making new maps takes even more time. The player dips between the DLCs in VT1 showed that they were a serious risk to the game’s longevity. Also, since Drachenfels wasn’t insanely well received it also showed to be a big risk putting all eggs in one basket like that. That’s why we instead have tried to find more ways to produce new content, not to not just churn out new maps but also new ways to play them, new goals to achieve and more and more differentiated cosmetic rewards.
We’re constantly trying to evolve, to become better, to try new things. It means some things will inadvertently not work, while others will. Looking at the numbers for Vermintide 2 compared to Vermintide 1, at least there seem to be some things working, but every time we explore something new it also takes a period of maturing to figure how to do it really well, even when it is ‘working’.
It also means some things just will end up abandoned and left at the roadside. Last stand was an experiment like this, we tried to make it work, but we just couldn’t get it to generate the appeal it needed to be viable for us to spend time on. Imo fortunes of war sort of made it work, but because of the ways it was different, was hand crafted and was an apex challenge rather than an alternative game mode (and because it had a clear end)."
Followed shortly by
Since a lot of people seem to have misinterpreted what I’ve been trying to say I’ll state it more clearly.
We’re not stopping making new maps. We’re just making other things as well so there isn’t literally nothing between the map releases. There was over a year between Drachenfels and Karak Azgaraz. Having gaps like that between new content is way too long for the health of the game (actually, it was even longer than I remembered it, my 9 months are likely off), so we’ve been trying diversify. The first step was to try doing 2 maps per pack, to have more frequent smaller updates, it helped somewhat, but it was clear to us we needed more content.
Besides the weaves, Winds of Magic does contain a new adventure map as well. It’s less than our previous two VT2 DLCs, simply because a lot of level design and art work went into crafting enough content to make the weaves feel varied enough to make the new game mode viable. We understand that the weaves aren’t for everybody so for those where it isn’t it may feel like “wasted” time, but that’s ok. Everybody doesn’t have to love everything, that’s why we also added Cataclysm, revamped all the talents for the base game, added more weapons and added a new adventure map. Hopefully though, we’ll have something for everybody.
You may not agree that we’ve followed the optimal strategy for the health of the game, but I hope that at least clarifies what I was trying to say.
So they’re still making maps. They’re trying to solve a “lack of content for half a year” issue.
This is all good, but why didn’t we got involved in the deed rework for example?
Give us the main outlines of it, then everyone can spit all the bile they want and they can see which direction gets support and which doesn’t.
In the end they have to rework everything to our liking, so why not ask for opinions during the design when there is still time to steer the implementation in an overall positive direction?
Because, and this was subtly and gently placed in the blog post, they know stuff that we don’t. And this is true. They know the technical limitations, they can try stuff that happens to not work at all, and promising things can lead to the “roadmap debacle”.
I mean, look at people, that, despite the whole explanation on why Weaves mode came to life, continue to ask for more maps only. They know there’s an issue with providing thoses at a good rate, enough to keep players entertained.
Now, I hear you, feedback from the beta should have been heared. Maybe it was the holidays, maybe there are others causes, I don’t know.
But despites the numerous changes, they didn’t adress the core issue with weaves “on time”. And balance can be wonky enough in some latter weaves that couldn’t be tested well.
I’m still good with talents, stagger and dodge changes, as, at its core, it was really needed, I’m still waiting for traits, and still would like some weave specific balance change before the end of season 1, but at the end, as long as the game become better, I can wait season 2.
I’m pretty sure if they have floated the IDEA - I never said anything about creating a road map - of the leader board, the seasons, the grind and reset, it would have been rejected well before they poured all the resources into it, just to have it rejected when it was already in the beta and now they have to scurry to make it work sometime.
Discussing an idea is never a commitment to anything, but once it’s done and then have it blow up in your face are completely separate things.
And if they were transparent about the road map and clearly communicated that some thing they wanted to do but in the meantime turned out to be not possible, they would have had a much less salty response than pulling it completely and then keeping quiet and hoping people will forget about it.
Edit: Once again, they are lurking around in the background with the weave rework, once again they don’t say anything about what they made of the feedback and how they intend to do changes and we will get it once it’s DONE, AGAIN - because they cannot be wrong, oh wait…
Leaderboard was known. Grind was not. They will always get salty repsonses, whatever they do. Some people takes things for granted.
They did a lot of things wrong but they are willing to experiment, and that is great. History often keeps succes in mind forgiving all those who failed… but if they dare try they may find something good, and that is encouraging. Besides, a lot of changes were needed and are actually good.
TBH, the leaderboard and its implication was just one of those details that kind of went past me in the beta because I couldn’t care less. What I cared was the actual gameplay, which, at first, was interesting, although not immersive as the full maps, but still it was a variation. I have hated the fact that it was basically a separate game with separate characters and items from the start.
