Disgruntled but not leaving.

Irritated that the programmers tasked with implementing the release did a crap job. Irritated that the QA team failed to identify the crap job. I feel sorry for the community team that has to deal with the backlash and for the designers that have their work trashed by the inept.

As a senior software engineer (aren't we all senior?) and development team lead I wouldn't accept this. If it was my team there would be a lot of people going on probation right now and if already on probation would be walking out the door.

This release is full of amateur mistakes, not obscure bugs that are only found under the pressures of real players. Many of the issues were found by the players analyzing the SDE a week or so before the patch even shipped.

Let's see, boring but flawless.

Boring: Standard old FPS game modes and tropes

Flawless: FPS mechanics.

Game: Titanfall.

This list is for players who are quitting due to the ineptitude of the game developers.

#1. Me

See you next week when you need to cap out again.

See you next week when you need to cap out again.

See you next week when you need to cap out again.

No one likes a quitter.

How much would it take for me to have your sister?

I too felt the need to cap every week, but after accumulating 40M with most of both the Dropsuit Upgrade and Vehicle Upgrade trees filled out I realized that more SP wasn't going to change my experience. New toys won't suffice. Running around in TDM on the same maps has been played out.

This game needs serious attention to new objectives/win conditions that allow the different suits and vehicles to shine in their own roles. It needs stuff for tanks to blow up to give us a reason to run them. It needs things to steal or sabotage for sneaky scouts to disrupt without having to shoot someone in the face. It needs some objectives that are best assaulted by air dropping infantry to give the dropship a reason to exist. It desperately needs diversity. It needs the RTS elements we were promised years ago (MCC commander and hot dropped installations). It needs progressive battles with real defenders in place at match start, not this generic everyone lands and rushes at once mode. It needs depth.

This list is for players who are quitting due to the ineptitude of the game developers.

#1. Me

This list is for players who are quitting due to the ineptitude of the game developers.

#1. Me

CCP would be doing itself a favor by deepening the game play. Tanks wouldn't have to be good at killing infantry if they had other things to do. Likewise scouts wouldn't have to be able to get the same number of kills as a heavy if they had more important things to do than rack up kills.

A wide but shallow game is far more difficult to balance than a deep one. In the shallow game every asset is competing directly with every other and that means balancing widely divergent assets against each other. In our current case that includes balancing a main battle tank against a dropsuit for infantry kills. That's nearly impossible to do if you want to maintain the traditional idea that a tank is a bad ass machine. Deepen the game a bit though and suddenly it's no longer so difficult. Give tanks a different task that infantry can't do and make them far less efficient at killing infantry. With that seperation you can now make them far more difficult to destroy beause they aren't competing in the same space as a suit. They now balance themselves out naturaly and no longer require an artificial vehicle limit. Tanks in Ambush mode would be a non-issue because they wouldn't be good at killing infantry which is the only objective in the mode. Yes you could call one in and roll around, but you may as well just left the match as your side would be one man short.

We don't need more toys that are all expected to do the same thing.

I'll be listening to the Fanfest announcement with an ear toward how they will deepen gameplay. That is the key.

This is so true. Dust has had this issue since day 1. there really is only one role - "slayer", and that's a good chunk of it's problems. If we had other, interesting, things to do, there would be much less pain on the balancing side.


People will play a flawed but interesting game, they will not play a flawless but boring game.

... deepening the game play. ...

A few ideas

Communications modules: like nanohives, you can deploy these relays which share tacnet data teamwide.
Logistics Control Center: actually control when and where vehicles are deployed when requested.
HQ: A single platoon leader may organize team level objectives from within the command center. Their voice channel is piped out to the entire team.
Materials resupply: CRUs and Supply Depots would have limited amounts of materials. A supply truck could be deployed to replenish stocks.
Minefield deployment: Combat classes could deploy minefields and breech them. Perhaps we could have a mine-deployment vehicle.
Build stuff: Allow players to build new walls and buildings during battle, thereby ensuring varied layouts each match.
Force field emitters: like nanohives, you can deploy these electromagnetic shields that protect everything within their AOE from outside hazards.

Disgruntled but not leaving.

Irritated that the programmers tasked with implementing the release did a crap job. Irritated that the QA team failed to identify the crap job. I feel sorry for the community team that has to deal with the backlash and for the designers that have their work trashed by the inept.

As a senior software engineer (aren't we all senior?) and development team lead I wouldn't accept this. If it was my team there would be a lot of people going on probation right now and if already on probation would be walking out the door.

This release is full of amateur mistakes, not obscure bugs that are only found under the pressures of real players. Many of the issues were found by the players analyzing the SDE a week or so before the patch even shipped.