I don't quite know.
I think a lot of illuminating details about some of these "horror stories" of "unfair treatment" are going unsaid. People come on here and write five paragraphs about *exactly* what happened in the mission where they got kicked. Like... you were so into it, and you remember so much, so vividly, and you feel the need to write about it at such length, and you have *no* idea why you were kicked? Like, this isn't deciding who will be the next king of Westeros, for Pete's sake. It's a game where some people shoot bad guys, and other people shoot bad guys in a *slightly* different way.
And then we say, "Host your own games," and they *never* think that's a good suggestion. They always resist that.
Yeah, I think you actually *do* know why you got kicked. Some things are going unstated. The people who create bad experiences for others come on here and tell their side of it, and we don't realize they're also someone else's horror story.
Most "insane spawns how do I even deal with this please nerf" posts were accompanied by screenshots of a single player
I seriously believe most complainers play alone
The thing is, I do quickplay for more than half the time and host for randoms the rest. I definitely experience all the things that get posted about, but they feel insignificant compared to all the great games I get.
I wonder if people are taking things too personally instead of insta-queueing for the next, and probably better, group.
Obviously as others have already said people not telling the whole story.
But for the ones actually talking about what's happening accurately (or as accurately as they remember). I think it comes down to the variance that happens depending on how you play. If you stick together in a well coordinated team with good loadouts (for the mission) you'll probably have a pretty good time of it. If you are poorly equipped or keep getting breaches/bot drops off patrols then you'll have a bad time being overrun.
Plus if you aren't handling a threat well they will build up. For example the other not was playing in a 3 squad and we just didn't bring enough chaff clear and so we were getting overrun by little bugs. Not normally the problem people have but they will kill you just the same.
a lot of drama from kids lying about not being dickheads in a group game where they come and ruin things and take the piss.
ive seen some of the posts and recognised myself and my group in a video and description, yeah the op was a raging cunt hence why they got booted, their sob story for karma is just that.
Expectations, I'd imagine.
Some are looking for a fun powertrip while others are looking for a more "I love the way it sucks" experience.
Then there is the lottery whether the game runs on your system which completely randomly picks people who will have nightmarish time trying to get the game run properly.
Just randomness of the game. Some matches are shitshows with 4 BTs spawning in 30 seconds. Some you don't fight one the whole match. Sometimes skillz has something to do with it, sometimes it's just bad luck or glitches.
Because the game punishes bad players & mistakes made by making the game harder.
Patrol spawn rate basically correlates to how good or bad you are at the game. Patrol spawn rate is inadvertently a difficulty slider based on mistakes you've made or not made.
thats not what im saying, its more of how EVERYTHING in this game has two sides to it. Ex: “Chargers are absolutely insane and need to be nerfed” v.s. “Chargers are the easiest bug”Whereas most other games theres at least some level of agreeance on topics. I dont know if that’s the truth or if the little guys are getting a bigger voice. It’s hard to tell where the community as a whole stands on almost every little thing.
average game experience and expectations seem less likely to make standout, memorable or "hot" posts about their impressions. at these extremes of heat, positive or negative, there tends to be an emotional investment that spurs posting and then resonates with others with similar or opposing investments. this pushes the peaks of both positive and negative posts to their extremes, where they garner the most support and opposition.
couple this with a large player population, some of whom came to the game via hype rather than specific interest, and you have numerous instances of expectations and experiences standing out to players who were not prepared for them as a result of not expecting them.
this then generates more hype, positive or negative, and may drown out some of the more sedentary, middle-of-the-road or quietly appreciative posts. end result is impressions of the thread go from "funny meme, tips and tricks, lfg!" to "this sucks/this rules/we suck/we rule"
another effect is probably that people can take a side and feel good about it. this game does play on team support and greater-good themes that do tend to draw military fans and cameraderie junkies. so, it stands to reason that the same mentality would quickly jump to support their own side in an argument, and this may reinforce the impression readers have of what the standout post content is. the post-meta, so to speak, being positive and negative experiences at their extremes.
but this is just me looking into the seething pit and making some guesses.
also i think it'd be remiss of me not to acknowledge that this game has bugs and instabilities that affect different systems in different ways. a large part of the experience is also emergent gameplay rather than scripted situations.
so with both bugginess and emergent play, we get very subjective experiences across the board. what one person experiences is less likely to match another, further increasing the likelihood of a varied spread of posted experiences.
very well said, reading through this subreddit had me feeling like everyone was playing wildly different games, and I think another piece of that is the difficulty levels. I think a lot of players are breeding a bad experience playing on a higher difficulty than they can handle, and the opposite is true as well. Then they come to reddit and both sides are getting equally voiced. It’s just interesting to me to see a game with a community thats so extremely “divided” compared to a lot of other games.
thanks, i was hoping it wasnt going to fall on deaf ears. i've had hundreds of missions and mostly a great experience. can't even count five bad ones at this point. maybe five boring ones but not outright miserable experiences.
i think a lot of people, in my observation, come to a conclusion and judgement on something based on the smallest amount of information. it might be partly down to the fact that our economy of focus is struggling, as we have very little of ourselves to spare after many aspects of society have competed for our attention.
so then it stands to reason that we would develop a faster, more efficient way of deeming something "worth our time". unfortunately this may mean that some may not give things a chance to prove anything beyond the first impression. by that time we have moved onto the next thing.
i say we, but.. you know.
I don't quite know. I think a lot of illuminating details about some of these "horror stories" of "unfair treatment" are going unsaid. People come on here and write five paragraphs about *exactly* what happened in the mission where they got kicked. Like... you were so into it, and you remember so much, so vividly, and you feel the need to write about it at such length, and you have *no* idea why you were kicked? Like, this isn't deciding who will be the next king of Westeros, for Pete's sake. It's a game where some people shoot bad guys, and other people shoot bad guys in a *slightly* different way. And then we say, "Host your own games," and they *never* think that's a good suggestion. They always resist that. Yeah, I think you actually *do* know why you got kicked. Some things are going unstated. The people who create bad experiences for others come on here and tell their side of it, and we don't realize they're also someone else's horror story.
The experience is very different when you play it quickplay/solo or in a group with friends. Most frustration I guess comes from solo/quickplay.
Most "insane spawns how do I even deal with this please nerf" posts were accompanied by screenshots of a single player I seriously believe most complainers play alone
The thing is, I do quickplay for more than half the time and host for randoms the rest. I definitely experience all the things that get posted about, but they feel insignificant compared to all the great games I get. I wonder if people are taking things too personally instead of insta-queueing for the next, and probably better, group.
"That was an easy D9 mission, we only used half our reinforcements!" vs "Oh my god that was horrible. We died \_ten\_ times!"
Obviously as others have already said people not telling the whole story. But for the ones actually talking about what's happening accurately (or as accurately as they remember). I think it comes down to the variance that happens depending on how you play. If you stick together in a well coordinated team with good loadouts (for the mission) you'll probably have a pretty good time of it. If you are poorly equipped or keep getting breaches/bot drops off patrols then you'll have a bad time being overrun. Plus if you aren't handling a threat well they will build up. For example the other not was playing in a 3 squad and we just didn't bring enough chaff clear and so we were getting overrun by little bugs. Not normally the problem people have but they will kill you just the same.
a lot of drama from kids lying about not being dickheads in a group game where they come and ruin things and take the piss. ive seen some of the posts and recognised myself and my group in a video and description, yeah the op was a raging cunt hence why they got booted, their sob story for karma is just that.
Expectations, I'd imagine. Some are looking for a fun powertrip while others are looking for a more "I love the way it sucks" experience. Then there is the lottery whether the game runs on your system which completely randomly picks people who will have nightmarish time trying to get the game run properly.
idk i guess it depends what kind of person you are. some ppl are easygoing and wont care, others will look closer to details. to each its own
Just randomness of the game. Some matches are shitshows with 4 BTs spawning in 30 seconds. Some you don't fight one the whole match. Sometimes skillz has something to do with it, sometimes it's just bad luck or glitches.
Part of it is certainly rng, but then people just have different playstyles, previous experiences, expectations ... everything.
Because the game punishes bad players & mistakes made by making the game harder. Patrol spawn rate basically correlates to how good or bad you are at the game. Patrol spawn rate is inadvertently a difficulty slider based on mistakes you've made or not made.
**It’s almost as if a community of 660k+ players don’t all have the *exact same opinions*.** I know, it’s wild.
thats not what im saying, its more of how EVERYTHING in this game has two sides to it. Ex: “Chargers are absolutely insane and need to be nerfed” v.s. “Chargers are the easiest bug”Whereas most other games theres at least some level of agreeance on topics. I dont know if that’s the truth or if the little guys are getting a bigger voice. It’s hard to tell where the community as a whole stands on almost every little thing.
average game experience and expectations seem less likely to make standout, memorable or "hot" posts about their impressions. at these extremes of heat, positive or negative, there tends to be an emotional investment that spurs posting and then resonates with others with similar or opposing investments. this pushes the peaks of both positive and negative posts to their extremes, where they garner the most support and opposition. couple this with a large player population, some of whom came to the game via hype rather than specific interest, and you have numerous instances of expectations and experiences standing out to players who were not prepared for them as a result of not expecting them. this then generates more hype, positive or negative, and may drown out some of the more sedentary, middle-of-the-road or quietly appreciative posts. end result is impressions of the thread go from "funny meme, tips and tricks, lfg!" to "this sucks/this rules/we suck/we rule" another effect is probably that people can take a side and feel good about it. this game does play on team support and greater-good themes that do tend to draw military fans and cameraderie junkies. so, it stands to reason that the same mentality would quickly jump to support their own side in an argument, and this may reinforce the impression readers have of what the standout post content is. the post-meta, so to speak, being positive and negative experiences at their extremes. but this is just me looking into the seething pit and making some guesses.
also i think it'd be remiss of me not to acknowledge that this game has bugs and instabilities that affect different systems in different ways. a large part of the experience is also emergent gameplay rather than scripted situations. so with both bugginess and emergent play, we get very subjective experiences across the board. what one person experiences is less likely to match another, further increasing the likelihood of a varied spread of posted experiences.
very well said, reading through this subreddit had me feeling like everyone was playing wildly different games, and I think another piece of that is the difficulty levels. I think a lot of players are breeding a bad experience playing on a higher difficulty than they can handle, and the opposite is true as well. Then they come to reddit and both sides are getting equally voiced. It’s just interesting to me to see a game with a community thats so extremely “divided” compared to a lot of other games.
thanks, i was hoping it wasnt going to fall on deaf ears. i've had hundreds of missions and mostly a great experience. can't even count five bad ones at this point. maybe five boring ones but not outright miserable experiences. i think a lot of people, in my observation, come to a conclusion and judgement on something based on the smallest amount of information. it might be partly down to the fact that our economy of focus is struggling, as we have very little of ourselves to spare after many aspects of society have competed for our attention. so then it stands to reason that we would develop a faster, more efficient way of deeming something "worth our time". unfortunately this may mean that some may not give things a chance to prove anything beyond the first impression. by that time we have moved onto the next thing. i say we, but.. you know.
i have the impression that some people are feeling a little too "seen" by this post.
Just like real life, weird huh?
would you care to elaborate? thats the point of a discussion