As the title says the game needs huge improvements and to correct its mistakes.
Perhaps it is impossible to understand why the game needs to be improved and why I say the game needs to be improved.
I'm a hardcore battlefield gamer and I've played almost all of the anthropomorphic, hardcore, battlefield games. For example, the Red Orchestra series, HEll Let loose, Squad series, PR, FH series, War of rights, etc.
Obviously easy to see, with the game's daily online description, the game is almost dead. In recent weeks, the game has never had more than 100 people online and can't even fill a server.
I bought the game when it was released, at the game's original price, and I was quite enthusiastic about the game, when the online volume was so high that the servers were packed, but now the game is as dead as dust, with almost no players.
I joined a private player group about the game when I bought the game, but now everyone is not playing the game, most of the players are players of other battlefield games, battlefield 1-5, squad, post scriptum. although people still relate to the development of the game and cheer every preview update, no one is playing the game anymore, no one is discussing the content of the game. People are talking about other games like Post Scriptum, (squad series) and I am disappointed that WWI never seems to be enjoyed by the rest of the players.
But is the problem with WW1, the limitations of this title?
I asked people in the player group what the advantages of Beyond the wire were. Most of them answered, fast and furious battles, close to the front line, easy to break out into gunfights, and easier to play than Squad, Post Scriptum. They also wondered why there are still no players to play it. They were convinced that the gameplay was as easy as Hell let loose and the map was as targeted (rectangular linear progression).
Then I replied, if the game's advantages are intense gunplay and proximity to the front line, take a game with the same theme (WW1), why would I not play Battlefield 1 for the intense gunplay? Why I do not go to play Verdun, tannenberg it?
And this is the reason why the game has no players.
Because of my statement, some of the players who mainly played Battlefield 1 appeared, and I asked them what attracted you to Beyond the wire in the first place, and they answered, freshness.
What? The novelty of the game attracted people to play it? And then what, the novelty of the game declined, leaving only so many people?
It's sad that the game was just treated as a fast food, not taken seriously, people watched the game's updates and cheered every update preview, expecting the next update to make the game hot, but the result was eternal silence. Until finally the servers shut down, no one played, and the game died completely. It's all too sad.
Why do I care so much? I love this game, and truly hope that the game can have its own large number of players and presence influence, most of the game in the hot period to play the game, only a few are sincere for ww1 title to come, the rest is to support and taste the new Squad series, Battlefield 1 with the same theme of the attempt (the preview is very good).
I sincerely hope that there is a more realistic simulation of the WW1 game exists, I have even fantasized about FH2, PR with Battlefield 2 to achieve a simulation of WW1 game.
The following is my personal subjective.
Take the same subject Verdun, Tannenberg, full of historical restoration, even if the game does not meet the standard of simulation, but they can be regarded as such as the red orchestra 2, and wind up 2 Vietnam in general products. Its clothing, and guns, and very short TTK, so that the game becomes not as easy as the Battlefield series. Because of this, the game has its own amount of players, and I could see the game online on weekend nights with at least 150 people on the European servers.
The same take Battlefield 1, this is a large number of players hailed as God-like works, most young people's first Battlefield, its historical theme is very not excellent, the only plot has a sense of war proximity, chaos without borders with the freedom of weapons, and in order to handsome and modified soldier uniforms, super soldiers holding water-cooled heavy machine guns (such as MG08/15) and aim and shoot, and still fit as a fiddle. Criticize its shortcomings with historical authenticity.
But Battlefield 1 also has its own merits, simple game, gun battles, carriers, big battlefield, excellent game music. These are most of its strengths that grabbed players, and then there is the historical theme.
Although this does not mean that Battlefield 1 players really like WW1, just observe the number of players in Verdun and Beyond the wire. Even if Verdun has made so many entertaining, "Battlefield" changes, it can't save its players online.
So, the goal was never Battlefield 1, the game will be entertaining, was never the way out of the genre, I remember when your studio released Beyond the wire, claiming that it will balance the game real and entertainment, trying to do both entertainment and balance. For this, I was looking forward to it, because and to witness how the game is presented. But now, in terms of the current game mode, I am disgusted, the development direction of the game is obviously aimed at the Red Orchestra 2 and the wind up 2 Vietnam type, hardcore, historical, but not lack of entertainment subject matter to go, but obviously, this does not fit the engine framework of the Squad series is not suitable for this game.
Your studio created WW1 The Red Orchestra, which clearly feels different in the hand, and the game design is different, and it's too weird to change the squad framework out of the game experience. The game doesn't have better action, character voices, great in-game music and historical experience (Vietnam has no history, but Red Orchestra is great)
And the game doesn't come close to Squad or Post Scriptum, of course I know you don't want to make a "skinning" game, but you can't help but compare. Or Hell Letting Go, the recently famous "hardcore" battlefield game, Beyond the Wire, which is a far cry from it. The problem is not World War II, not the theme.
As you can see, all of these games have their own audience, their own player base, and players have been playing a game for more than just the theme, more than just the quality of the game, more than just the design of the game. The main thing is the core of the game.
The Red Orchestra series has its own unique gameplay, different from Battlefield, excellent campaign mode, very good historical experience, the experience of having been through a war.
Battlefield has an exclusive gun experience suitable for popular entertainment. Excellent picture quality, excellent music.
Squad focuses on tactical simulations. Hell let loose is a relaxing experience that allows players to implement tactics in a historical skin with a WWII theme.
The game needs to adjust its development path, and tanks and historical army formations are clearly not enough.
Here are the suggestions.
The game mode needs to be increased, my vision is that the game needs a large battlefield to simulate WWI, not just a medium sized rectangular map, the front line advance is the basis of WWI, as far as I know from the books I read about WWI and the 1930's "No War on the Western Front" movie about WWI, it is clear that the Verdun game mode is best suited for that battlefield.
The same game needs inherited characteristics, maybe the game needs troop carriers, supply trucks, but that doesn't mean the game is a replica of a squad.
The game needs big maps, big enough to carry a lot of people, maybe this needs 150+ people, this might need 300, or more, but if you follow this vision, I personally think the playability of the game will go up more than a little bit.
You need huge maps and almost complete trenches to provide the front lines for major battles. And the map has a rear, and what's the rear? Command positions, supply lines, and warp-fire artillery.
Why do you need rear rows? Obviously, the trenches of World War I had front and rear lines, but let's discuss why this was needed.
World War I was known for artillery, gas and muddy trenches (and probably rats), and this game, without even combat artillery available for players to play with, is so boring! Imagine how nice it would be to be able to provide covering fire for your teammates on the front lines, just like Hell let loose's artillery.
Of course, the artillery is not a panacea, ammunition will one day run out, as will the soldiers on the front line, so we need supply lines, from the rear of the ammunition depot, by trucking supplies to the front line with artillery, this map must be well designed.
We need to give the commander-in-chief of the front line a special rear office along with the artillery, yes, to give orders to the front line company commander, exchange information, understand the battle situation, is the player's job can be observed from the rear of the map, and accept the company commander's request for fire support, making the tactics more important.
It is better to use only range voice for ordinary soldiers on the front line, which will increase the simulation of historical reality, as well as maps that can be viewed, preferably by any soldier other than the company commander can not view.
The game should ideally use only area voice, where the enemy can hear you speak and so can the attached teammates, where the company commander can call command over the phone, and allow artillery to deliver the correct artillery barrage to the battlefield.
The game should have a long final front line until the final trenches, closing in and threatening command and artillery positions and ending, of course, with the presence of bent artillery close to the near front line.
This is the game's ultimate simulation of the historical reality of the vision, of course, only to provide information.
For the gun game, and the infantry experience suggestions.
Should reduce the accuracy and stability of aiming when the machine gun is not set up, as well as the accuracy when it is not aimed, which is a correction to the fairness of the game, often you can see the machine gunner only one person will kill, while some machine guns really can not guarantee accuracy when shooting directly.
Pistols are too powerful, reducing long-range ballistic accuracy and aiming stability. Most of the time players can't get special soldiers, and these soldiers make the game very weird and battlefield-oriented.
Enhance the effect and sound of suppression and experience the fear of survival.
This is my advice and opinion.
I have been wandering and various similar games, have criteria and evaluation for each game, like and fair view of each game's strengths and weaknesses, each game has its own players. I hope to make the game really will be better, the upcoming release of Holdfast:ww1 on February 17, as well as Isonzo in internal testing, is squeezing ww1 games to survive, if Beyond the wire is still like this, it is not difficult to imagine who will fail in the end.
I hope you can improve the game and save this game, I will always support the efforts of the developers.
By Mystic Reaper.Exe
I am happy to see continued changes for the command squad but I believe, along with some other community members, that the role of the signaler should also have the ability to place markers for the commander on the map. Not many people enjoy playing the signaler and that is because your a signaler and you can't "signal". The role is not even as unique as now command telephones are going to be scattered across the map, making the telephone in the kit and, also not forgetting the fact that you can open the map right off the signaler himself. This role could also be made unique by giving the signaler a flare gun that could be shot and reveal enemy positions on the map for a brief time period. It could be just like the flares on Ansoncourt have a bright but smaller area of effect. I think something like this would really bring the signaler role more to life, thanks for any consideration given!