>currently online: 800 players
What a fucking failure this game was.
>MUH 100 player servers
Cool. In a few weeks, you'll be able to fit the entire playerbase on a single server.
Guess I'll just keep playing Insurgency.
Those absolute madmen though it was a good idea to charge 40 bucks for an early access game with no content. Should have waited atleast until they had vehicles in.
They didn't even discount it during the sale. Their marketing strategy is really bad. Having a simple name like "Squad" even works against them, if only to cloud google searches for related content and conversation.
It's actually really good despite a whirlwind of problems and still-unfinished features. It really shows promise, I really hope this game doesn't die and gets a second wind when it gets "released."
How many successful "we are actually the realest tactics shooters" games can there be on the market at once?
Maybe if fps/tps developers focused on creativity rather than making yet another arcadesim they wouldn't run out of players.
On one hand I'm glad about this, most EA games take what money they can and abandon the game. So if it's not popular yet, they have a reason to keep developing the game.
Was Insurgency popular when it was in EA? They've been doing a great job of updating and adding stuff to the game even after release.
I dunno, i thought it was a great idea. Most realistic shooters are still just run and gun.
Ive been waiting for a legit slow paced, tactical squad based shooter for ages. Arma had too much of a learning curve for me, and stuff happend too slow.
F4om what i gathered, they basically took armas formula and simplified it.
Ill end up buying the game eventually, ive just got too much shit to play from the sale.
How many "survival" games can there be?
I don't like the genre, but at least developers can infuse some originality if they want. You may fight the undead, dinosaurs, original creatures, etc, as well as having original landscapes and crafted items.
When it comes to military or racing arcadesims you really can't deviate.
It's got a hope of being good, but progress is S L O W. It's borderline vaporware
It was announced in 2013 and the devs have just now completed their first proof of concept map
keep telling yourself that
You could easily do something original even in a military setting.
How about a dense jungle level? Snow level where you can hide in the snow or dig tunnels? Use fire like in Far Cry 2? More complex melee systems? List goes on but devs just do desert and little towns because it's easy.
>release day peak is a good judge
squadfags on suicide watch
>Implying that's a bad thing
I'd rather have 800 fun and cooperative players at my side than 80,000 fuck-wit lone wolves that think they can carry the whole game on their shoulders.
Me and my friends were gonna get this game, but we weren't about to spend $40 on an early access game. Personally, I've never bought an early access game and I never plan to.
We all bought R6Siege instead, little did we know we may as well have bought an early access title with how that game runs
>pull a number out of the ass
>abloobloo it doesn't matter, it's just a beta! it will get that number, i swear!
People realize they aren't even shooting for a wide market?
The game is literally an updated Project Reality, same devs and all. That's the fanbase they want to please, you know, the one thats managed to keep a Battlefield 2 mod going strong for what, 10 years now? With constant updates?
They don't expect a wide playerbase from a game that demands teamwork like it does. If you've ever played PR, you'd know that playing without teamwork and a mic is essentially useless. It's the only game where people consistently work together because it has a great squad system that promotes teamwork.
Arma 3 alpha:
No vehicles (barely work)
No mod tools ever
40.00 plus tip
As long as you're not playing any leader role in PR, mic isn't necessary.
Only some try hard couch generals will kick you out but you're bound to have better time anyways without that kinda people.
Insurgency is better than RO2.
>Better core mechanics
>Better kit customization (no unlocks)
>Popular competitive mode
I'd play RO1 if it wasn't dead, it was better. Unlocks and levels are the cancer that killed RO2.
I've already played Arma 3 Alpha
Why would I play squad?
>muh arma 3
Oh I get it, you're autistic, and you have some weird loyalty to arma3 that makes you want to shit on Squad
suck a dick kid, anyone with any kind of AMD hardware can't run the game with a decent amount of players. why don't you google something before you open your fat fucking mouth about it
Squad is bad for many reasons
the fact that it can't even outcompete the shitshow that is Arma 3 is just sad
Yeah, but there is very little you can do without somehow co-ordinating with other players, minus maybe playing a Sapper, and even then, it's best done with a squad of other Sappers or a squad leader who can communicate cache positions to other squad leaders.
If you don't have a mic in AAS, you either follow a leader or you're just not going to have much fun.
>game literally just came out
>in early access
>vs the third installment of a well known franchise that has released all its content more than a year ago
I hope you're trolling right now, or you're absolutely fucking retarded
PR is more well known than Arma
>muh early axis
>they'll fix it
>its just an alpha
>Its just a beta
>released ALL its content.
Squad has literally 1/2 of the content Arma 3 Vaniller does.
Squad is already a much better shooter than MUH CORRIDOR SNACKBAR SIM xD and Arma 3 is a complete mess on public servers, unless you join a sperglord milsim group good luck having any teamplay in that game.
And then when those 800 people get bored because there's no content and it drops down to 200 people it becomes an issue. Idiots here like to act like having a tiny player base is a good thing but its not. Those same 800 people would be there if there were 15000 others playing.
Thing is if it's an accurate military sim terrain won't even matter because you'll be hundreds of yards away potshotting each other and using drones and shit. Unless of course its an older war which I would gladly welcome a sim of.
>my face CQC
>my face when every time there's an enemy encounter there's a 80% chance we shoot each other to death
>can't even call mortars
>implying 800 players isnt enough to have fun
The "dead game" meme needs to stop.
Stuff like Warsaw functions fine with like 20 players.
No it isn't. Played PR for about 3 years and I only used mic for discussing random shit with others, very rarely talking about anything game related.
Only autistic couch generals give some tacticool orders on what to do and it's always a cringe fest.
Most of those things could work though, imagine setting a huge fire to force the enemy to come from certain direction etc.
plus all the youtubers completely overselling that early prototype tier empty mess isn't helping. Clueless people buy it and then get bored after 30 minutes. And rightfully so, because right now it's just poorly optimised lone-wolf infantry skirmishes and explosive/rally point spam on small maps.
Love when the image decides no to upload.
PR and ARMA has the best and worst communities in vidya.
Once I lone wolfed myself behind an enemy team in PR, managed to kill over 10 guys and got kicked out with a message "we don't play like that here".
That reminds me of the US military large-scale war games that happened like ten years ago.
The side that was gimped to hell and playing the opposing force had brilliant leadership and completely shat on the US side. Eventually, the commander of the games gimped the opposing force repeatedly and changed the rules until they lost in order to keep up appearances.
>Red, commanded by retired Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper, adopted an asymmetric strategy, in particular, using old methods to evade Blue's sophisticated electronic surveillance network. Van Riper used motorcycle messengers to transmit orders to front-line troops and World-War-II-style light signals to launch airplanes without radio communications.
>Red received an ultimatum from Blue, essentially a surrender document, demanding a response within 24 hours. Thus warned of Blue's approach, Red used a fleet of small boats to determine the position of Blue's fleet by the second day of the exercise. In a preemptive strike, Red launched a massive salvo of cruise missiles that overwhelmed the Blue forces' electronic sensors and destroyed sixteen warships. This included one aircraft carrier, ten cruisers and five of six amphibious ships. An equivalent success in a real conflict would have resulted in the deaths of over 20,000 service personnel. Soon after the cruise missile offensive, another significant portion of Blue's navy was "sunk" by an armada of small Red boats, which carried out both conventional and suicide attacks that capitalized on Blue's inability to detect them as well as expected.
>At this point, the exercise was suspended, Blue's ships were "re-floated", and the rules of engagement were changed; this was later justified by General Peter Pace as follows: "You kill me in the first day and I sit there for the next 13 days doing nothing, or you put me back to life and you get 13 more days' worth of experiment out of me. Which is a better way to do it?" After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action.
Darkest Hour had a comparable community to Ostfront at its peak. Mare Nostrum is perhaps a better analogy, but Mare Nostrum was dope.
All of the RO games are desperately, DESPERATELY, D E S P E R A T E L Y missing player-operated field artillery and emplacements. It makes absolutely no fucking sense to have so much tank stuff going on but no AT cannons (especially on the early-mid eastern front before recoilless rifles became a thing). Seriously, what the fuck.
You should try to follow a simple reply chain and be the goods of write that of the English lesson of written.
>After the reset, both sides were ordered to follow predetermined plans of action
Jesus fucking christ.
why do you guys even care about any of the unfinished games, at all?
whether or not an unfinished game has lots of players or not is irrelevant. It's still unfinished. Call me back when I can have the full intended experience.
Darkest hour currently has 1 filled server constantly. Though it may have HAD population, it's peak is 64 now. Mare Nostrum wasn't as popular due to the map layouts and vehicular setting. If you can grasp how far artillery is when it fires, you would understand why it's not on the map. Artillery strikes on Dog Green a D-day map, are from destroyers and rocket ships farther out then the LSTs
like most of the time their kikestarter didnt bring them enough money to bring the game any further.
they wouldve run out of money in december so they had to dump the game as early access to stay afloat.
Current money will last a few more months and 2-3 content updates, then they will put it on sale to get the last bucks out of it and by the end of 2016 its game over.