Playerunknown's : Battlegrounds

Falthyron

[ASCII]BRING BACK RAIN AND FOG MAPS![/ASCII]



Makes you wonder as to how effective the ASCII campaigns on the forum actually are. 'Region Lock China' was the first and that was implemented and then came 'Give Map Select' and here we are. I wonder if we all started posting 'FIX THE GAME' on the forum would they actually fix the game?

Lukker-

UI is looking a bit cleaner. I'd be relatively happy with the game if they could increase the early game tick rate/reliability and sped up the circles a little bit so a game doesn't take 45 minutes.

jonski

Any chance the fixed it so items spawn when I enter a room instead of me having to go out and back in again .

RossieMan

Games take about 28 minutes now if you win.

They made it faster, the boring people who fly out to nowhere complained so they changed it back.

You can't make everyone happy.

nix

RossieMan wrote: »

You can't make everyone happy.

Shouldnt even be about that, should be what makes more sense.

Do you want the blue to push people together into gun fights or do you want it to wreck and kill most people?

To me it makes more sense to move slower than people can run, this way more people die to guns instead to boring gas. Anti climactic is the phrase.

"Then just make sure you're always way ahead of it"

Well, its not always that simple, you could be going from bad cover to bad cover, to needing to heal to more bad cover. It should be more skill based than rng, otherwise whats the point

Lukker-

nix wrote: »

Shouldnt even be about that, should be what makes more sense.

Do you want the blue to push people together into gun fights or do you want it to wreck and kill most people?

To me it makes more sense to move slower than people can run, this way more people die to guns instead to boring gas. Anti climactic is the phrase.

"Then just make sure you're always way ahead of it"

Well, its not always that simple, you could be going from bad cover to bad cover, to needing to heal to more bad cover. It should be more skill based than rng, otherwise whats the point

If you are dying to the blue you need to learn to loot quicker/find car spawns.

Falthyron

One competitive game of CS:GO can last up to 90 minutes. It has been that way since 2012, it has never changed. CS:GO is still one of the most popular games played on Steam.

Why does PUBG need to change the circles to shorten games when the game has worked well this way since Early Access? Is it because other games do their circles differently? Since when does PUBG have to change its game to be more like other games? Surely people should just go and play those other games?

Squaredude

Yeah I wish they'd change the circles again, the settings they had last week worked really well

I thought those changes were brilliant but didn't get a chance to try them. Speed up the early game and lengthen the mid game. What's the problem

RossieMan

Comparing pubg to csgo is like comparing apples and bananas because they're both fruit. Completely different types of game.

The circles are being changed to make people fight, play the game the way it was intended. The middle game at the moment is boring.

Falthyron

RossieMan wrote: »

Comparing pubg to csgo is like comparing apples and bananas because they're both fruit. Completely different types of game.

The circles are being changed to make people fight, play the game the way it was intended. The middle game at the moment is boring.

And what were we doing for the past 12 months? Not fighting? Not playing the game the way it was intended? They certainly left the circles in a bad way for 12 months then and gave no hint as to knowing that the circles were broken and would be fixed in a future patch...

Personally, I like the slow, methodical approach in PUBG. Its why I liked playing it originally and drew me to it. More time for thinking and planning. If I wanted to play a decent military shooter in deathmatch or TDM mode I would go and play Battlefield. The 'War' mode of PUBG has shown it isn't a good TDM game, but it can be a decent Battle Royale game so it should stay focused on the aspects that make it more like a Battle Royale and less like a deathmatch/TDM.

Lukker-

Falthyron wrote: »

One competitive game of CS:GO can last up to 90 minutes. It has been that way since 2012, it has never changed. CS:GO is still one of the most popular games played on Steam.

Why does PUBG need to change the circles to shorten games when the game has worked well this way since Early Access? Is it because other games do their circles differently? Since when does PUBG have to change its game to be more like other games? Surely you should just go and play those other games?

I don't get the comparison to CS: GO. That's a competitive game, people expect longer sessions. And 90 mins is the maximum, honestly 45 mins or less is the average.

I would say they need to change because the player base is dying. People on streams constantly complain about boring games. People hiding in houses in 15 minutes isn't fun or exciting. I can currently hide and go make a grilled cheese sandwich and win the game.

My friends who played PUBG got bored of it long before Fortnite became popular. We'd go for a drop, have some early engagements and then loot and move for a mid game. About 15 minutes of it. It's not rewarding, and when you add in you can get rekt by a team just hiding in a house with the doors closed after spending 15 minutes not seeing anyone.

Movement and engagements are what makes the game fun for me. I still think the other style should be catered for but there has to be a cut off.

nix

Lukker- wrote: »

If you are dying to the blue you need to learn to loot quicker/find car spawns.

Read second part of my post please, car spawns are RNG and the circle is RNG, meaning you can get ****ed by both quite frequently. Ive ran half the map alot of times without finding any vehicles, and even if you do, they are so bug ridden and crap you can end up upside down just from driving across flat ground.

Lukker-

And I will say, the mid game was always quiet, early in the game it was enjoyable just driving around with team mates shooting the **** on discord. Now though it's almost radio silence during it. It's like it's so boring it just made everyone jaded about it. Tedious is the word.

Falthyron

Lukker- wrote: »

I don't get the comparison to CS: GO. That's a competitive game, people expect longer sessions. And 90 mins is the maximum, honestly 45 mins or less is the average.

I would say they need to change because the player base is dying. People on streams constantly complain about boring games. People hiding in houses in 15 minutes isn't fun or exciting. I can currently hide and go make a grilled cheese sandwich and win the game.

My friends who played PUBG got bored of it long before Fortnite became popular. We'd go for a drop, have some early engagements and then loot and move for a mid game. About 15 minutes of it. It's not rewarding, and when you add in you can get rekt by a team just hiding in a house with the doors closed after spending 15 minutes not seeing anyone.

Movement and engagements are what makes the game fun for me. I still think the other style should be catered for but there has to be a cut off.

The game grew to 3.1m concurrent users based on the current circle settings and now, because something with greater instant gratification comes along the game should be changed to appeal to that crowd? There will always be people hopping from trend to trend. PUBG was the trend for a long time, and the people who follow trends have moved to Fortnite as it is the current trend. If a major AAA publisher announces a big Battle Royale game at E3 you can bet the trend will switch to that and then a large cohort will move from Fortnite as well.

So, does PUBG want to be a game that tries desperately to stay fresh and appeal to people looking for the latest fad or should it stay true to its original design and concept? Personally, the latter, or else it becomes another bog standard title in a long (soon to be) list of Battle Royale games without a defining style or mechanic.

The CS:GO example is being used to explain how a game that sticks by its original design and principles can see prolonged success and maintain a healthy userbase. If PUBG thinks it can hit 3.1m concurrent users again they are more delirious than I thought. There was always going to be a massive drop-off, but the question stands: do they want to hold on to the long-term audience who got into the game for its unique gameplay, or do they want to keep changing to suit the latest trend?

Lukker-

Falthyron wrote: »

The game grew to 3.1m concurrent users based on the current circle settings and now, because something with greater instant gratification comes along the game should be changed to appeal to that crowd? There will always be people hopping from trend to trend. PUBG was the trend for a long time, and the people who follow trends have moved to Fortnite as it is the current trend. If a major AAA publisher announces a big Battle Royale game at E3 you can bet the trend will switch to that and then a large cohort will move from Fortnite as well.

So, does PUBG want to be a game that tries desperately to stay fresh and appeal to people looking for the latest fad or should it stay true to its original design and concept? Personally, the latter, or else it becomes another bog standard title in a long (soon to be) list of Battle Royale games without a defining style or mechanic.

The CS:GO example is being used to explain how a game that sticks by its original design and principles can see prolonged success and maintain a healthy userbase. If PUBG thinks it can hit 3.1m concurrent users again they are more delirious than I thought. There was always going to be a massive drop-off, but the question stands: do they want to hold on to the long-term audience who got into the game for its unique gameplay, or do they want to keep changing to suit the latest trend?

The red zone is the dumbest thing in the game should we keep that too? Faithful to formula doesn't always work or hold water.

CS GO get's tweaked all the time. There is less variance because the meta got relatively fine tuned with previous released. But look at the differences of the original CS between 1.0 and 1.6 - lots of things were tried before they settled on a formula.

I've played the game from the very beginning. I enjoy it in the right circumstances. Right now, it feels like those circumstances aren't encouraged more often than not. I get what you are saying, but there has to be some middle ground that satisfies action orientated players and slower guys. Right now we have two parts of action. Early game which is often so laggy it's not enjoyable. And the end game which is frantic and the circle and luck is main driver for who wins.

They need to slow the end game down, make mid game fighting more viable so everyone doesn't land in the same 2 towns.

I think the meta of games always changes, even if it's subtle. Every big competitive game out there, I guarantee you the style of play and what works/doesn't has changed considerably if you look at videos now compared to 2 years ago.

Squaredude

All games need to adapt and make changes over their lifespan. They can still make changes and stay true to it's original design. They changed the circle settings in the past and everyone was fine with it and people kept playing. They need to give the newer circle settings more of a chance or put them on the test server for longer to allow people to get a feel for them. A little less time to loot isn't going to break the game and to me makes for a more consistent game from start to finish

Virgil°

I think the midgame being quiet has always been a problem. But there's a few factors to it. Not just the circles being slow. (Honestly i don't mind a quiet midgame as I find it tense. The tension is why i prefer the game to fortnite)

For both maps theres only a 2-3 places that
a) have good loot
b) are almost guaranteed to be in the circle

As a result the midgame is literally always in the same portion of the map - Bit boring. If you want to land in the remote places of the map which have good loot you better pray for a vehicle or you'll be playing a running simulator for 20 minutes.
Also due to hotzone dropping from the plane being favoured, over half the plane will be dead by the first circle. 35 people wandering those huge maps(especially miramar) makes for some seriously quiet gameplay. This is exaggerated even more in squads due to squads sticking together, effectively making it a 10 player game for the last 25 mins of gameplay.

I think they need to adjust the placement of the circle.It seems to favour centre map far too heavily. In 500 hours of gameplay ive literally never seen a circle land on zharki or the miramar north milbase. Possibly bring back guaranteed car spawns or increase their spawn rate. Make the some of the remote zones have better loot also. All this in addition to making the circles faster is the solution IMO.

Lukker-

Virgil° wrote: »

I think the midgame being quiet has always been a problem. But there's a few factors to it. Not just the circles being slow. (Honestly i don't mind a quiet midgame as I find it tense. The tension is why i prefer the game to fortnite)

For both maps theres only a 2-3 places that
a) have good loot
b) are almost guaranteed to be in the circle

As a result the midgame is literally always in the same portion of the map - Bit boring. If you want to land in the remote places of the map which have good loot you better pray for a vehicle or you'll be playing a running simulator for 20 minutes.
Also due to hotzone dropping from the plane being favoured, over half the plane will be dead by the first circle. 35 people wandering those huge maps(especially miramar) makes for some seriously quiet gameplay. This is exaggerated even more in squads due to squads sticking together, effectively making it a 10 player game for the last 25 mins of gameplay.

I think they need to adjust the placement of the circle.It seems to favour centre map far too heavily. In 500 hours of gameplay ive literally never seen a circle land on zharki or the miramar north milbase. Possibly bring back guaranteed car spawns or increase their spawn rate. Make the some of the remote zones have better loot also. All this in addition to making the circles faster is the solution IMO.

Agree with most of that.

The circle being in the middle of the map is just the law of averages, it will always have more of a chance being in the centre. They would need to alter the algorithm to get more edge finishes.

dreamers75

I dont find have any problem with the start game, mid game or end game. I think if I last to top 10 I get an enjoyable 30 odd minutes (the perfect game length imo). I also find the red zone a decent feature as it is random and sometimes will appear in your path forcing you to either detour or wait. Sometimes I dont even see it or notice it.

The start game in Solo/Duos/Squad is simply landing somewhere you, them will walk away with an assault rifle and 4x and a SMG with a holo, sniper rifle and 8x is gods territory.

Mid game is about moving to where you think it will end eliminating anyone you come across.

End game is being the last one no matter what

Problem is "reddit" gamers find that mid game where you have to move without anyone shooting at you is boring, they need constant action. I dont find it boring but I have nearly played a ridiculous amount of tactical shooters over the years to know that even if noone is shooting at you they are probably watching you and vice versa.


Game is fine imo rarely have any lag issues and if Wu Zhen Li shoots me with an SKS in Yasnaya and he is in El Pozo well so be it.............

SeantheMan

Falthyron wrote: »

. If a major AAA publisher announces a big Battle Royale game at E3 you can bet the trend will switch to that and then a large cohort will move from Fortnite as well.

COD has announced Battle Royale


For me personally with PUBG

-Early game is very boring...looking for loot for 20 mins
-Circles close way too slowly...making games a lot longer than needed
-Netcode is still laggy and janky and still so many issues which is unbelievable given how much money the company has.
-Cheats abound
-The inconsistency of loot spawns in certain places ....maybe 20 shotguns in 1 area....but no MG , or loads of of guns...but not a backpack in sight.

I can see why it's popular.
I can see why Fortnite came along is more popular these days as it looks and plays nicer...but it has a stupid build mechanic that doesn't work for me.
I can see COD making big waves in the Battle Royale genre, but not grabbing the Fortnite or PUBG crowd as it will obviously be FPS and people dying QUICKLY !!. Probably much smaller maps.
I can see another big publisher doing the whole thing right. (Ideally DICE ! ...get the BF2 / BF3 onto it....even reuse some of the old maps for it)

nix

Id rather not COD or BF tbh, they will release a new one every year or two and they will be just as bug ridden as PUBG but pretty.

Retr0gamer

Don't really see anything toppling fortnite soon. I think the combat feels horrible in the game but being both free and on a huge number of platforms has really cemented itself in popular culture. Pubgs Microsoft exclusivity was probably the worst thing they could have done.

SeantheMan

I just had a game of PUBG. I don't play much.
Maybe have 8 hours total ?
Got a crate just now...some military cap inside.
Trades for 20euro.
Game just paid for itself.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Don't really see anything toppling fortnite soon. I think the combat feels horrible in the game but being both free and on a huge number of platforms has really cemented itself in popular culture. Pubgs Microsoft exclusivity was probably the worst thing they could have done.

what has that got to do with anything? If anything we're lucky they're not gone properly multiplatform as they seem very thinly stretched as it is.
they've teams doing mobile versions as well but that seems an entirely separate thing.

SeantheMan

SeantheMan wrote: »

COD has announced Battle Royale


For me personally with PUBG

-Early game is very boring...looking for loot for 20 mins
-Circles close way too slowly...making games a lot longer than needed
-Netcode is still laggy and janky and still so many issues which is unbelievable given how much money the company has.
-Cheats abound
-The inconsistency of loot spawns in certain places ....maybe 20 shotguns in 1 area....but no MG , or loads of of guns...but not a backpack in sight.

I can see why it's popular.
I can see why Fortnite came along is more popular these days as it looks and plays nicer...but it has a stupid build mechanic that doesn't work for me.
I can see COD making big waves in the Battle Royale genre, but not grabbing the Fortnite or PUBG crowd as it will obviously be FPS and people dying QUICKLY !!. Probably much smaller maps.
I can see another big publisher doing the whole thing right. (Ideally DICE ! ...get the BF2 / BF3 onto it....even reuse some of the old maps for it)

The game would far too difficult if they tried to change these two issues at once. I think the middle and later circles close too quickly personally.

Retr0gamer

Stone Deaf 4evr wrote: »

Retr0gamer wrote: »

Don't really see anything toppling fortnite soon. I think the combat feels horrible in the game but being both free and on a huge number of platforms has really cemented itself in popular culture. Pubgs Microsoft exclusivity was probably the worst thing they could have done.

what has that got to do with anything? If anything we're lucky they're not gone properly multiplatform as they seem very thinly stretched as it is.
they've teams doing mobile versions as well but that seems an entirely separate thing.

It's got everything to do with it. Missing out on being represented on the dominant platform gave fortnite an open goal.

Stone Deaf 4evr

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's got everything to do with it. Missing out on being represented on the dominant platform gave fortnite an open goal.

yeah, but the game, to put it mildly is in a sorry state on xbox, if they had the same team trying to cobble it together for ps4 as well, it'd be quite rightly lambasted. As much as I'm not a fan of fortnight, at least is seems relatively polished and optimised. plus, being free was always a major pull for kids too.

CatInABox

Retr0gamer wrote: »

It's got everything to do with it. Missing out on being represented on the dominant platform gave fortnite an open goal.

That's true to a certain extent, but I don't think you realise how ropey the game is on Xbox. It's gotten better, but in terms of "feel", there's a vast vast difference between the two. Fortnite looks and feels like a finished game, PUBG looks and feels like a game that should only be entering Early Access now, nevermind four months ago.

It may have sold a load on Xbox, but it's also turned a lot of people off. Maybe they'll come back, maybe not.

Captain Obvious

Deleted User wrote: »

The game would far too difficult if they tried to change these two issues at once. I think the middle and later circles close too quickly personally.

They are making the circles more dynamic. I think the late circles will be timed based on the number of players still alive.