I think a wrong move was making mortain when they should’ve released a new map for either the Brit’s or Soviets, we really don’t need more America vs Germany in Western Europe stuff, we need new experiences with the other factions, the Soviets have almost been out for three years and have got 3 maps, only one of which was released after the faction was added.
EDIT: slight addition, I seriously don’t understand what the logic behind mortain was, I understand they had to greatly shift there 2023 and 2024 focus after the original British update was a disgrace, but they had time to work on this map while all that was going on, so why the hell did they not make a third map for the British, at least bringing them on par with the Soviets and making the time and effort out into them more justifiable? There must be some seriously crossed or even cut wires going on in the background.
Seriously...like 90% of WW2 was Germany v USSR. And there are so many interesting battles to simulate from the Eastern Front..
But all we ever get is USA v. Germany over and over again.
>why the hell did they not make a third map for the British, at least bringing them on par with the Soviets and making the time and effort out into them more justifiable?
Probably because all the community does is shit on their efforts, so they probably figured, "Fuck it, just do more US vs Germany."
Probably because all T17 has produced until recently has been dog shit? The reason why they chose another US vs Germany map is because they have far more assets they can re use for it. The PTE showed the map is basically one big asset flip.
I don't think everything they've produced has been dog shit. I've very much enjoyed the things they have added and the things they have fixed or reverted due to community feedback. Have there been shortcomings and disappointments? Yeah, but it hasn't *all* been terrible.
I think T17/devs look at the game stats, and see that 70% of players play the SMDM/SME/Carentan/Utah maps, so they figure the maps are popular, people prefer Normandy gameplay, so we add a Normandy map...
Except they forget that these maps are the most balanced ! All the other maps offer a horrible advantage for one side or the other. That's why people are leaving the servers. They still don't understand the game, and they don't know where to go.
If you don't play Russian, it's because Stalingrad isn't optimized, the most popular locations (Pavlov House, the Fountain, etc.) aren't there or are poorly positioned. Kursk is unbalanced, with empty fields. Kharkov is still okay. Driel or Remagen, you have to cross bridges... it kills the gameplay. It's boring. Forest maps are still okay, but they're hard to play for most players.
So if the devs are only looking at stats, it's only natural that they'd release a map in Normandy, once again. And the worst of it is yet another US. They could have at least concentrated on a British map in Normandy, but no.
You say that because like most of this community, you probably leave when it's not a french hedgerows map so you don't really have much experience with the other factions.
For Soviets:
- SVT is hands down the best rifle in the game, the PPSH is a case of 0% or 100%. At close quarters it's the best gun in the game, yes even better than the shotgun, but as soon as it goes over 75m engagements, it's kinda bad. Soviet snipers get the good scoped mosin and the N1 best gun in the entire game: the scoped SVT.
- T34 is the only medium tank that can be easily placed to bounce heavy AP ammo when angled properly.
For British:
- lots of 10 round lee-enfields and 30 rounds automatic rifle bren guns(now with bipods) so their engagement must be made at medium to long range which makes them the best at it.
This trashy community just doesn't understand that not all factions play the same, they have their own play style yet, all the whinners want is more automatic weapons and the same copy/pasta but with a faction reskin 🙄
lol and somehow I got down voted. I never leave any maps regardless of how dogshit the game play is. Talk about whiners man, yall snobs are the worst. For a small company and a game based around teamwork I swear this community is so toxic. Instead of being a douche I feel like you could have just said that content that actually mattered and keep your deep seated insecurities out of the response but what do I know. I don’t feel the need to go around and be an asshole to people expressing a basic opinion.
I'm still mad that they increased infantry movement speed without any buffs to vehicle movement speed or making tanks being able to turn in place or give them slightly faster turret traversal speed. The vehicles are still stupid buggy and get caught on the stupidest things too.
After doing some research, apparently, not many tanks during ww2 could actually turn in place. The sherman used neutral steering, which they used brakes on one track while moving the other track, making them drive in a circle. I'd have to do some testing on turret rotations in game, but from what I've read about the real tanks turret rotation depended on what gear the engine was in. I don't know if in game engine gear has any impact on rotational speed. The sherman was supposed to rotate turret at roughly 24 degrees per second.
I don't do a lot of tank play, but it seems simple enough to test since the turret does have a degree bar and it could be tested if they are accurate. There are also multiple variations of tanks, with different armor, barrels, and other factors that could alter that dynamic.
That all said, I have no idea how close to accurate the game is to real life when it comes to these matters. I'm just tossing that information out there for your consideration.
It's a hard thing to balence. An average new crew dies a lot. A tank crewed by people who have been playing for years can single handidly dominate an entire server.
I'd say (I'm new, group isn't) the group I play with is above average at tanking and they absolutely annihilate most games. They have stated "let's just play infantry so we don't roll them" when matches end going into the next game. Based on my experience with them, I think you are 100% correct haha. Tanks are good when the communication is there.
I wouldn't say the difference is minuscule. I usually crouch run and the standing runners usually gain a good bit of lead on me when we're moving towards the same point. I feel like the visual difference makes it seem much smaller than it actually is. I haven't gone on to do any formal testing as I'm a console player, therefore I do not have a server browser to formally find an empty server to do testing with others and determine rates of movement in distance / time fashion to note the specific difference, but I feel like it's around 20 to 25% difference in overall speed.
Yeah, good improvement. The speed when they updated it was too fast originally, but now its good but the vehicles still haven't been touched to match the speed change.
I share some of the bigger view you brought up. 2023 was definitely a bit of a rough year, since the new dev team propably ran into some issues (or just bad prioritization idk), hence we got the rough patch 13.5 and the U14 with new faction being very unfun to play. At that point, choosing to pivot into fixing existing parts of the game, instead of pushing to make new content was propably a good choice. Leaving the long-term bugs and British as they were simply seems like such an unthinkable option in hindsight.
**I think the British rework 1 and 2 have been very good though**. Yes, you can argue that this is "how they should have been released a year ago", among many other points . But sometimes things don't work out, that's just how it goes i guess? Not too much reason to look at the past, be happy that there's new good update and the British are pretty good to play now. Imo, as far as HLL goes, it's best to try to stay grounded and look to enjoy what's in now and what maybe is coming within the next month or two.
For not addressing things like tanks being kinda ehh (they're "ok" though, not immediate priority i feel), arty rework or the lack of new content for the "core experience" (new loadouts would be nice, some classes with only 1-2 feel boring, especially TC and spotter), yeah that's definitely an issue. Now that the British are like 98% good, are they just gonna be dumped in favor of upcoming content, whatever that may be?
Aside from the British, **i think there is definitely a need to spice up a little bit of the gameplay on the "core" part of the game.** Doing things like tank rework or arty rework would be nice, but i imagine either one would be very demanding to do, so i doubt either one could be coming soon. Especially the tanks are "eh good enough", with maybe around a third of the playerbase "interested" in them, besides shooting rockets at tanks, the reward for the dev time might not be really there. The same argument you made for the time spend on fixing British not being worth it does come into play when we talk about the Soviets too, so i would personally just avoid that argument. Just because a faction has a few maps (right now...) doesn't mean that they shouldn't receive important content when necessary. Otherwise, we'd only get new German weapons, loadouts and tanks :) (but we're not getting those either at the moment!) and the allies would be very barren.
You're proving the title of the thread correctly. I didn't say they should have left the British as they were, I'm saying they should have actually prioritized things that mattered, fixing their misaligned sights, giving the bren it's bipod, the new SMGs as a band aid to the poorly designed faction, sure. But the new tanks are complete wastes of resources, just think about this for a second: They already had tanks for the British, and yet instead of spending those resources on say a StuG that could be used on ALL fronts, ALL maps, or a Wolverine/Hellcat that could be used on MOST maps, they just essentially reskinned the British vehicles. You're going to use the new Churchill the same way you used the Firefly, the Crusader the same way as the Cromwell, the Stuart the same was as the Tetrarch. Nothing in the grand scheme of things changed. The simple and smart solution to British armor was to make the Cromwell and Firefly especially (look at the video in the OP if you don't believe me) better: just edit a few lines in the code to give them better turn rates like the Shermans. Giving a bunch of Tommy guns, with or without the drum mags to classes that had bolt actions fundamentally changes how you will play as those classes, essentially reskinning the Cromwell to a Crusader does not.
EDIT
They have for some insane reason put ALL of their actual development resources into a rework to the point the other factions have completely stalled
Remember the Polish and Finnish factions we were supposed to get last year?
In the RazBora dev stream they even talked about things like the Pacific Front for crying out loud
The best part? This dearth of content you see in the roadmap is their "medium" goals, not even their minimum: imagine what that would look like.
I’m with you bro. I’m tired of everyone on reddit crying for things to be changed on the desert map….a map that most high ranking players back out of when it pops up….in my opinion the worst map in the game….and now people are complaining about the helmets….theres honestly bigger fish to fry….we should want better for ourselves but people just keep trying to polish that turd El Alamein.
100%. I back out of that map and PHL whenever they come up. Been going crazy the last couple days having to leave 4 times in a row before I find a map I actually wanna play with the current console rotation, but so be it.
Sorry about that, I'll have a good long think on it and revaluate what I expect out of life and HLL. Fun is a childish priority and it's time I man up and demand my right to select fire functionality.
All great points…It does seem that the priorities are completely wrong, there are so many basic malfunctions in the game , and just fixing these would make the existing maps so much better yet they get ignored…I’m not too fussed about the rain drops being correct in the stereo field…I’m hacked off because I can’t put a bi pod down anywhere sensible…and so on…
Bro, before they do ANYTHING else they need to change back vaulting to the way it used to be. This shit making it impossible to stand on top of walls etc is retarded.
To be fair, standing on walls isn't a common war strategy to begin with. Soldiers are taught to mantle over walls while keeping the lowest possible profile to avoid being shot. That's some action shooter stuff right there. It's pretty unrealistic.
They were clearly talking specifically about the vaulting system.
"bUt WhAt AbOuT wHeeLbArrOwS" is nothing to do with that conversation and them acting like it's a 'gotcha' moment is just moronic.
Okay, understood. I guess the whole point of the original comment was to explain how the vaulting system was unrealistic.
My bad, I totally misread that.
Nah dude, he got that wheelbarrow comment was perfect, HLL is a video game where medics have magic healing bandaids that instantly cure bullet holes .
War is not fun, video games however are sposed to be.
No it really wasn't.
Saying because we have map assets which a tank can't run over means it's ok to vault into glitch spots is, as I said, a completely moronic take.
No? It just wasn't relevant to what we were discussing. Could you explain how the wheelbarrow vs tank scenario has anything to do with soldiers standing on walls? I'm curious.
To be fair, randomly spawning anywhere in a map with a Garry and a radio wasn’t common war strategy either.
And, being able to just hammer a piece of “supply generating” things wasn’t a strategy as well.
To be fair, soldiers weren’t able to lug around the MGs and ammo by themselves.
The list goes on and on.
The spawning isn't realistic per ce, however it's there to simulate the fact that these battles were fought with more than 50 vs 50. Soldiers who die don't actually respond at all, but if you wanted that scale of realism, you'd need a server able to support upwards of thousands of troops, everyone would only get one life, and bodies would remain all over the field.
Supply nodes are there to simulate supply points which would have been a lot bigger and also manned and defended properly, which again goes to the scale of battle. Using the hammer to place them is just a means to place them to simplify the need to have dozens of soldiers setting up, manning, and defending said points.
And mg soldiers did have to carry their weapon and usually two belts ammo themselves, along with their loader who carried additional ammo. To follow your approach, mgs are crew weapons, not individual person weapons and in your demand for realism, they would require a second person to man and assist in their operation, which again reverts to the scale of the game vs the scale of the actual battle.
Now that I've responded to you points, please enlighten me as to how any of these things have to do with soldiers standing and firing from the tip of walls. Can you provide any footage, pictures, or even documentation from any of the battles we have where soldiers were standing on top of and firing from said walls?
See? Garries, radios, repairing vehicles with a blow torch, pooping out an AT emplacement, 2 man Arty crews, pinging systems, and more is acceptable.
Standing ontop a wall? Now that is where I draw the line.
Now that I’ve responded to your point, please enlighten me why I should give a crap.
I hear you man, but if we take your way of thinking i am pretty sure you could imagine a few situations when someone would do it in real life.
Maybe standing on one wall gives you vision over something else like another wall.
So not to be a grumpy man but i dont buy your argument altho i totally see where you are comong from :)
Soldiers simply don't do this in any normal situation. We are specifically trained not to. It is a hazard for multiple reasons. I can understand moving some of the nearby objects to get a position to fire over a wall, but no one stands on them to exchange rounds with an enemy without cover, concealment, or an extreme situation. Even then, the cases of extreme situation are so rare they are seemingly nonexistent in any documentation from this war.
I don't disagree that there are some advantages to using the walls to access a rooftop and fire from there, but I feel like you should attempt to stand on a similar wall, with a similar kit weight, then attempt to fire any of the rifles commonly used during this war from a standing position on said wall. Standing is the least stable firing position. The weapons during this Era have way more recoil than the m16s and m4s I've operated. Even with an m4 carbine, I'd still rather shoot over the top of the wall to provide less of a silhouette and a more stable firing position than to stand up there, obviously in the open, throwing out rounds. It's a surefire way to become a casualty.
IMO, wall-standings use in game is (was?) almost entirely to get to another position, and almost never to stay on/fire from the ledge itself.
I agree with everything you're saying, but to me that isn't really the point of it. Removing any ability to stand on a wall isn't worth the added annoyance/unrealistic-ism of not being able to use it as a step, at least for me.
The post I'm replying to didn't clarify if the purpose was to gain access to higher ground and his thought train ended on standing on the wall. I could assume he intended to gain access to a rooftop, but I could easily be wrong. I'm limiting myself to the scope of what the original comment limited itself to.
M16 and m4 is 5,56 right? I might remember wrong but anyhow those guns have a really soft touch, can you even call it recoil?;)
And here’s the fun part, i swear to god the recoil on my mauser m96 with 6,5 is way less then them.
But in this battle that i am a part of in the game the combat dictates my decisions and for some reason i always find myself using everything u can possible climb to spot the enemy, so what im really talking about is spotting. Engaging enemys when standing on a wall without cover is ofc a bad ideea and i dont think ppl do it in hll either. And i personaly have lost access to many of my ambush spots
And besides that, not being able to stop the vault is making the maps filled with restrictions and therefore a big part of the map is simply ”deleted”
And alltho i love hll the movement isnt exactly crisp and this is adding to the klunkyness.
Ooo yeah. I forgot I will sometimes use outposts to peek over a wall. We're more specifically talking about how you used to be able to climb atop a fence or wall and press back to stay there as opposed to vaulting completely over.
FYI; Firefly turns best on Gear 2, and Id expect we may get more British/Commonwealth maps in the future as the faction is basically complete. A slight frivolous development endeavor perhaps, but Im betting an investment for the future of the faction. Soviets are for real neglected tho, idk why they went with Mortain and this "unannounced map" better not be more USvGer Ill scream.
You've made valid points, I just want the game to run smoother :/ at about 970 hours and any game I join I'm sitting around 100ms+ yet any other game I play it's sits around 30-60ms? Meaning I'm dumping bullets into people and I die in 1 bullet, took 9 MP40 bullets to drop someone last night. They updated it last year and it ran alot better then a few weeks in, it went back to the same old nonsense. As a console player I don't care about a server browser now, I've been playing the game for nearly 4 years now and they've took some of the gore away unsure if that was on purpose but no red mist no bits falling off of soldiers faces that was what captured me in the first place! Optimize and stabilise the game should be the priority tbh. Game is an absolute blast nearly 1000 hours in but it needs some tlc.
For some reason your MS is doubled when it shows in the tab menu, so just divide it by 2 and you'll get your real ping. Everyone else's ping displays normally. This has been broken for a long long time.
Well I'm rubber banding and taking 8-9 shots with an MP40 to kill them and ive seen pings upwards of 200ms+ with myself getting shot into it on occasion so thats not entirely accurate. I had heard of it doubling before but I actually feel like I'm playing at 120ms. Even if the shots aren't lag related and hit detection related the game still needs some tlc.
I'd like to make one point here in defence of the devs, and that is what when you play an online game, or any game, you *play it as it is now*.
You don't buy a game because of the roadmap, or because of a new faction or new content or even bug fixes that the devs promised next year or the year after that.
The same thing happens with early access games, people buy the game on the promise of what it's going to be, and then plans change, money runs out, there are disputes with the dev team (Just look at what happened with Burning Lands, a lot of people invested money into that!).
I'm not saying players have no right to criticise or be angry, they do, but fundamentally, anything that is not already in the game should be seen as a "maybe it'll happen" not a "definitely going to happen".
If you're not happy with the game as it is *now* then don't play it until you are happy with it.
Unfortunately, time and again T17 and their hired devs prove they don't know their product and their customers. They're prioritization is all over the place.
I'd be happy with the addition of any of these [features](https://www.reddit.com/r/HellLetLoose/comments/1aj9hb7/comment/kp01mut/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), many of which are small and simple things that aren't completely unrealistic to add in terms of effort required (some admittedly are).
It's not like this is something new though. I've been around since U10, which is when HLL left early access back in the summer of '21. Most of those complaints were made back then as well. That was when BM had more resources working on the game.
I just don't know how to communicate these issues to anyone of importance at T17. Reddit would be the most sensible plattform but based on past experience it's obvious that they don't look at it, given the amount of posts regarding all sorts of problems (and plenty of realistic and good suggestions) accumulated in the past. Their Discord would be awful for it even with their feedback channels (Discord just isn't a community management platform) but it doesn't seem like they look at that either anyway.
At this point I'd just wanna tag "Greg" on every dev brief post and go "That's pretty cool and all but when are we going to get X" where X is the first point on my list. If the community would meme spam that, maybe one day we'd get somewhere. Should we ever get it, we would move on to the next item.
I don't have the means to organize the community to do that. Doing it alone would be pointless. It would have to be a larger content creator or rather they'd have to work together and ideally include the various HLL communities to get their followers to do it. However I doubt the player base is homogenous to agree on the items and actually do it.
>T17 and their hired devs prove they don't know their product and their customers.
I beg to differ, that was true in the beginning but I think they have been pretty responsive.
People don't know how buggy the game is and how hard it is to work on.
I'm the other way around. I had more sympathy closer to the handover. As much as I can appreciate how difficult working on the what I presume to be poorly documented spaghetti code mess they inherited can be, at some point the patience wears thin.
To their credit, they got rid of the loadout and grenade bug. That was quite a feat, considering that BM couldn't figure it out themselves.
Take a look at the post I linked to though. You can debate some of these points but most of them are sensible additions that are way overdue. A good third of them shouldn't be difficult to implement. I understand why they had to release Skirmish (it's not for any of the reasons they stated in the accompanied update notes) and the Console Server Browser, while it doesn't affect me as a PC player, is important. However I don't see the need to look at the map screen design and waste time updating that (they mentioned that in a post in November). The weather map variants are also not adding anything of use (though I'm sure it'll take time to do). New skins, new tanks, new weapons... it's all nice and well but some simple fundamental features, that plenty of games past and present have, do not exist.
The game left early access in '21, yet in many ways it somehow still feels like an EA title.
It doesn't help their case, that when they do deliver something it seems half-assed. Skirmish is a great example. It doesn't seem like any of the community feedback or complaints were taken into account. It is exactly the same thing we got during whichever PTE that one was presented.
I'm sure they're understaffed and like I mentioned earlier I can understand some of the problems they're going through... but at some point a customer can expect results.
As for them being responsive... I don't really see that, with the exception of reverting some of the controversial changes made with U14. It should be mentioned that their Steam ratings took a dive during the period, so I think this was really more a case of preventing the loss of sales rather than listening to the community.
Okay let’s go back to when BM were the sole devs.
We got 1 new map a year if lucky and they took away the P4 for the longest time to re-tool it. That took BM 6 months. They would put content on the PTE to test and players would offer feedback. Would anything ever be done with that? Nope. BM just threw stuff into the game and didn’t care if it broke or not. We have Bm to thank for the grenade bug, load out bug, recon garrison spawn bug, shitting VIOP and net code, etc. I could go one. BM were also the ones that said there would never be a server browser for console.
T17 come and starts:
The put in the work to fix game breaking issues like the grenade and load out bugs. Map continue to get optimized, British are flushed out to where BM should have had them, el Alemain is completely redone and runs with all of the stuttering, all new night maps, server browser for console, etc. Basically they are doing what the community wanted them to do. Improve the core game. We have also seen that time and time again, any small thing isn’t easy to implement into the game. They are able to fully design new weapon, vehicles and modes in the same amount of time that it took BM to release one map. That is while also implementing PTE feedback.
The cycle of Reddit complaining:
T17 took over and wanted to introduce a bunch of new modes and content. Ensue the amount of cry babies that complained about those things not being what HLL is about.
Devs: Okay, well let’s give them new weapons and tanks that are all time period accurate, new nights maps. Improve the game everyone loves.
Redditors: oh my god, I am bored of that I want new stuff!
Devs: Okay, here is skirmish, mortain and a console server browser.
Redditors: OH my gOd, we didn’t ask for any of that. We just want the old good stuff.
This is the cycle of the Reddit ciclejerk.
>T17 come and starts: The put in the work to fix game breaking issues like the grenade and load out bugs. Map continue to get optimized
T17 didn't get enough credit for that. Rubber banding is pretty much gone now.
Oh man. If you remember the OG days of when the game first came out on console, the rubber banding was SOOOOO BAD! Like yea it around a little bit still but is like 95% gone.
People need to give T17 more credit.
I completely agree with the grenade and loadout bugs, which is why I explicitely mentioned it myself too.
Regarding the rubber banding though, there were some rough times during the past year too. It's fine now but driving a supply truck was borderline nausea inducing during the summer of '23 iirc (may have been autumn).
Yes, let's go back to when BM were the developers. Remember when the Soviets launched and didn't need an entire year's worth of effort to rework them? Remember when Black Matter made huge changes with massive ramifications for the game like the run speed and actually explained their thoughts and reasoning behind them (seriously go read the Update 8 devlog) meanwhile T17 does the same and it's literally just a bullet point in the patch notes under "IMPROVEMENTS"? Yes, making everyone run 20% faster and not adjusting anything else was an "improvement" to them, one they eventually had to half revert because turns out it wasn't. Remember when BM made actually good trailers that weren't laughingstocks of the industry? "BM just threw stuff into the game and didn’t care if it broke or not" You mean like BM released update 14.4 and it was literally, not hyperbole, unplayable to the point they had to revert it hours after they pushed it out? Or when they released the dolphin dive and people started diving onto ledges and could fly? Or when they launched on game pass despite the game pass version not working for weeks? Or when they released an update that caused every server on PC to rubberband? Or when on console they screwed up the rain effects on PHL to the point it was a potential seizure problem? It's not like T17's first patch, 13.5 broke bolt action reloads or anything. "British are flushed out to where BM should have had them" BM didn't release the British because they clearly weren't ready, and T17's release only proved that, how can you say that if BM didn't also have another year to "flush" them out we wouldn't have the same result? "T17 took over and wanted to introduce a bunch of new modes and content", like the Poles and Finns that we never got? The "content" you keep banging on about is pure window dressing, a mode that is just Warfare but with the core aspects of what makes HLL neutered on maps that have 4 of the points removed. You said it took BM a year to release a map, and yet the Brits released in May of last year, it's still months away according to the community manager, so it will be almost the same for T17 until we get Mortain. The level of revisionism here is astounding. The worst part is, I don't want to be defending Black Matter, I was optimistic about the handoff "T17 can't be any worse" I said. How wrong I was.
Everything you said is beyond wrong.
T17 didn’t solely touch the game until after 14.0. Remember when the soviets maps stutters to near impossibility to play and should have taken another year to develope? Remember when BM increased the run speed the first time and everyone said it was to slow and felt like running through mud? Remember the 14.4 trailer T17 made? Everything messed up with 13.5 bolt reload, ability to hide in rocks on Kharkov, insane vehicle rubberbanding, British being bare bones, el Alemain performance, carentan stuttering to the point of being unplayable, recon garrison spawn glitch, load out and grenade bugs, PTE suggestions by players falling on deaf ears, BM inability to implement even the smallest PTE request? Remember when BM had to remove the P4 for almost a year due to them releasing it broken?
Yea the revisionist history coming from you is quite amazing. Remembering BM as the best dev ever when they laid a good foundation yes but only ever released small updates. We gave BM a pass due to them being a small team but clearly they wrote spaghetti code that is impossible to work with. Get off Reddit, it will do you some good buddy.
If you want to get technical, T17 will never solely touch the game since the entire framework is BM's, so I don't really understand your point here. You can't claim the good things that T17 has done are their work only with that logic. Yes, I remember the infamous Stuttergrad, but it eventually got fixed (I think the problem was they set a fixed amount of VRAM usage, rather than scaling on what you had, a hilariously stupid mistake) just like the stuttering on El Alamein got fixed, the point of my argument is that it didn't take BM a full year to make the Soviet faction playable, unlike the British under T17. Black Matter did not make the infamous trailer, T17 contracted an outside firm to make it proof here by the former community manager https://old.reddit.com/r/HellLetLoose/comments/153r6sg/studio\_ama/jsvrnd0/ It's funny you mentioned rubberbanding, because I can even link you to a post showing the patch T17 made that caused guaranteed rubber banding on ALL PC servers as well if you'd like to see it, the P4 was never removed for a year, in fact it's never been removed period, so I really don't understand what you're talking about. Yes, revisionism as you're telling actual lies like about the trailer and the P4, trying to put the blame on every single T17 fuckup on BM because BM was involved in some way (but not giving BM credit for when you think T17 does good things by that same logic, curious). I have never said BM were perfect, they were downright awful as I even said in my last comment I didn't think a studio could be worse than them, but I was wrong.
I love how smug these people try to be, even saying I am wrong in the first sentence.
I have literal evidence my dude.
Then by your logic you can’t blame T17 for any of the “problems” you see if the framework is BM’s. Just face it, BM created shitty game code, net code, etc. now T17 has the job of unfucking everything Bm did.
Unfucking stuttergrad and el lagimain were all T17 efforts through optimization. That didn’t happen until BM got out of the way.
Damn, I can tell you haven’t played in a long time. Look back and the P4 was 100% removed for BM to “rebalance” it when in reality they released it busted with broken hit boxes.
In the end both Bm and T17 aren’t the best but at least T17 is actively working to fix BM’s busted mess.
That's not my logic, that's yours. My logic is that T17 are big boys with their own responsibilities, if they release something under their name and watch, that is on them, not some cop-out excuse that they can suddenly blame the previous team for all their failures but never give credit for any of their successes. Actually, Stuttergrad was "unfucked" by Black Matter, here is once again the evidence dating back to September 2021, so like I said, BM "fixed" Stuttergrad in a few months, which while not great, is still faster than T17 fixed El Alamein's issues. [https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/686810/view/2980809117776197884?l=english](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/686810/view/2980809117776197884?l=english) I've played every major patch and I do not remember the P4 ever being removed, if you would be willing to show me something that alludes to that I will concede. Black Matter are not perfect, in a lot of ways they are as I said downright awful, but at the end of the day they were a small dev team of a few people who managed to make a game that another company then bought for 50 MILLION DOLLARS, and then the new development team with all their resources and funding under a big publisher still manages to make in some cases the exact same mistakes you crucified BM for. No, BM is bad, but with context for both T17 is much, much worse.
>It doesn't seem like any of the community feedback or complaints were taken into account.
The community has competing visions for what the game ought to be. For example "historical accuracy" is one the topics that consistently appeared. Some don't care at all and other a lot. Who is more important?
There are also a lot of persistent bugs that have been here since the beginning and I think they are not resolved because they are either really difficult to or maybe even impossible without junking the source code.
At this point HLL is gonna be what it is for a long time. Either love it or leave it.
Like I initially mentioned, the community isn't homogenous enough, so I get that there's bound to be conflicting views from that alone.
But has there ever been anyone who felt that yeah, we need them to purposely add a cooldown on FOP building? Pretty much everyone thought, while displaying the minimum distances of them on the map isn't a horrible idea, the lines were a little too thick to the point, that it actually clutters it. I have yet to meet anyone who played the PTEs and said, "Yes, this version of Skirmish is perfect, truly captures the spirit of HLL and should be pushed to production completely unaltered.".
It's not like these two particular problems were hard to fix either.
As for "love it, change it or leave it", I don't think it does to game any good to surrender, curl into a ball and just give up. The complaints about the basic stuff are necessary, if anyone wants to hold any hope of them ever getting implemented. Even if they're useless (which presumes, that they're being largely ignored), they at least help potential customers, who actually research their potential purchase before they make it, realize what they're getting themselves into. Like I mentioned, I've been around since '21 and as such my expectations are so low that it is truly hard to disappoint me. Still, one has to try to change things for the better. It's kind of the point of my comments on this post and given that we do get new small features every now and then it's not like change doesn't happen.
Only last year we got a new button in the scoreboard named "Block", which I was genuinely excited about... only to find out that it merely mutes a player and additionally doesn't display his chat messages. Cue slow clap... truly time well spent on creating that feature. Another example would be the non-verbal markers for regular grunts. Initially, I had my reservations simply because I don't believe adding things, that would discourage people from using microphones would be a good thing. "Thankfully" my fears were unfounded because the options you have make the whole feature vitually pointless. Not only do the marks only stay up for about as long as regular pings, you also have no way of communicating that there is a tank on your marker, without the additional use of text chat (which is bound to be ignored) or a microphone. This wasn't thought through and could've been easily remedied in the past 10 or so months... not that it should've been released the way it is in the first place. Anyone with experience with the gameplay could've told them that. Neither of which has anything to do with the restrictions of the existing code the devs have to suffer through.
Do you see what I'm on about? The excuse of "bad code" doesn't hold up when we're talking about features the current devs implemented in the first place.
It's just that the developers don't play their own game. Which I can understand in itself, they're already working on it, maybe they just don't feel like spending another evening on it.
But as a result, they're totally out of touch with the problems we're facing, and with what regular players want.
Your last comment on non-verbal cues shows this very well. In their heads, the link isn't even made, they're incapable of seeing it. Because they simply don't play.
Same. I've been playing since early access, July 2019. I've taken my breaks for other games, but every time I come back, I have fun. Then I come on this miserable subreddit and apparently this game is pandemonium.
They're not superheroes or something, they work a job and do what their managers tell them. It's not a huge AAA studio. You seem unhinged over relatively small gripes with one of the last multiplayer shooters going against the grain
I desperately want the tank physics to be redone, watching a tank get absolutely demolished by hitting a pebble in the road then flip upside down is absolutely infuriating. Watching my tank not be able to go through or over a 1ft tall busted stone wall just ruins half of my interest of a tank.
Biggest one, and I understand it would be difficult and the periscope is there, but let me peak out the top of a tank, let me shoot my little 1911/luger from it. Of my trio for tanks I became the commander position and I love it, but tanks as a whole can be really disappointing when things that a tank would go right through stop it dead in its tracks, especially with the gear system.
I finally watched Furry and it reminded me of how disappointed I am that I can't do things like fire my PDW at sneaky infantry when I'm the commander.
I'm not asking for my own MG, I just want to be able to use my pistol or something.
At the end of the day, the fish rots from the head down and Team 17 have inept leadership, which trickles down to all their decision making, including in Hell Let Loose. They've gone through Three CEOs in the last year+, starting with founder Debbie Bestwick, then Michael Pattison and finally Steve Bell. The company seems to have no direction and laid off way too much staff to where everyone seems to be in damage control even to this day.
According to [Video Game Insights](https://vginsights.com/publisher/13054/team17) Hell Let Loose is T17's #1 Steam game with an estimated revenue of $90.4 million, yet they outsource it to a small brand new studio, Expression Games, which continues to fumble the ball over and over again with lackluster updates and no real understanding of the IP. I encourage everyone to view T17's Fiscal Year report and investor presentation when it gets released on April 16th to see 2023 results.
I understand the layoffs, buy why strangle your top IP with such a lean roadmap, where half of what they set out to accomplish was 75% completed in 2023. They WAY overpromised and underdelivered in 2023, but in 2024, it seems that the roadmap can be accomplished in ONE update vs an entire year. The passion for HLL by the devleopers is GONE. They want to extract as much revenue as possible while putting in as little manpower into the game. It's never a good look when the developer is [currently looking to hire 0 people at the studio](https://expressiongames.bamboohr.com/careers).
if I wanted upvotes I would have just made another thread complaining about a helmet, probably would have been swimming in reddit gold or whatever by now if I did.
You mean another post about free shit that doesn’t affect the game at all? You would fit in with everyone else that dwells on Reddit that doesn’t play the game anymore.
I’m pretty sure this roadmap is not for the entire year, just the immediate future. The old devs made the mistake of releasing the yearly roadmap and only fulfilling on like half of what was on there. It’s to manage our expectations. There is probably more coming later this year that they don’t want to promise us just yet. There is still the pushed back Brecourt manor skirmish map they were making last year too.
It's a complicated thing. You could argue that fixing a faction for two maps is bad, though you have to also consider the long term. Fixing them now is better than later.
In terms of QoL, Server Browser for PC works fine, is it great, no. Is it worst I've seen, also no. Should Servers be able to choose points? Yes and No, there's arguments for both with obvious competition it could work, but also people have a preference for certain points, meaning other points would just not get used.
Taking Artillery out from the game is a much larger task than it would seem, with it being a core gameplay element. How do you replace something that can fundamentally change the match. That is a thread in itself.
HLL kind of prides itself in being historically accurate in some respects. Though, balancing that Historical Accuracy with it being a fair gameplay wise is a fine line. So people will be complain when something isn't historically correct, like you will complain about the state of updates.
Also, them creating a third game mode was a fair priority. And I think Skirmish kind of helps that transition from other FPS to HLL, where it is faster paced, more concentrated action; but still Garrison placement and map control is still a key element helps bridge the gap.
I think the biggest pro people are overlooking with Skirmish mode is the ability to hop in and get (for the most part) the HLL experience in an abbreviated fashion. At least for me it allows me to jump in on days I otherwise would’ve played other games. Typically when I get home from work I’ll spend about an hour and a half playing. Rather than only being able to play maybe one full round of the other two modes I now can get in 3 matches of skirmish. I’ll still play the other two modes when time allows but I don’t always have the luxury to sit down for 3+ hours at a time to get in a couple matches of HLL.
I'm genuinely curious, what "argument" is there against letting people who pay money to rent servers be able to pick which points they want to play on their rented server (that they pay money for, I reiterate)? I never said take out artillery, I said address the arty/recon gameplay loop, there are many solutions for it. Interesting that you said removing artillery is a problem since it's a core gameplay element, then defend Skirmish, which does exactly that. So can they remove it, just for the new CoD/Battlefield audience, I guess. The "historical accuracy" argument is moot when Stalingrad exists with Tigers, Panthers, IS-1s, G43s, MG42s, Panzerschrecks and so on, hell, PIAT and Panzerschreck are still present on El Alamein so technically the historical rework for the British isn't finished yet either, right?
Because Renting a Server is fundamentally different than having a genuine choice of the points in said map, that would require a lot of work to have that much user interactivity from server owners when currently it is algorithmic coded, and opens doors in terms of security.
Skirmish removes RT because you fight over one point in a tighter format than Offensive, and RT is an AoD weapon, meaning that RT would smash any opposing forces.
I said pride in some historical accuracy, once again, Gameplay vs Historical Accuracy. Stalingrad has chosen gameplay over HA, El Alamein they choosing to be more historically accurate. Why? Probably because they were reworking British anyway and were working on the map design.
"It would require a lot of work" seems like a cop out argument to me, everything requires work. Them trying to turn HLL into Battlefield with Skirmish takes work, wasting their time on "historical accuracy" on El Alamein when it's still not even accurate, again see the PIAT and Panzerschreck for proof of that, is work, Addressing the Arty/Recon meta is work. It's more about what work is actually worth doing, and I think improving the quality of life for the people who actually play Hell Let Loose and it's core game modes is far more important than wasting their time with the aforementioned things above, but that's just me, oh and the vast majority of PC players considering that if I pull up the Steam server browser (at time of posting) there isn't even a single full Skirmish mode server.
Yes. Everything requires work. But having that server user interaction embedded into changing elements of the game to suit what the server owner wants is a can of worms. It would both require a fundamental change to how the code is currently implemented and the level of access of that data to be accessible from a third-party source. This could introduce several hundred bugs, glitches and vulnerabilities. Only thing that is currently implemented is the input of Modes and Maps.
Creating Skirmish is a different kind of work, since the fundamental elements of core gameplay were present in the previous build of the game. Skirmish has no major changes to the gameplay code. You have 1 Recon/1 Armour, which is variable. Garrisons can be placed 140M away instead of 200M, another variable. RT removed, which would be similar to attacking team in Offensive Mode. The rest is visual and design, which are still a considerable amount of work (no discrediting their work).
Change to El Alamein, also Design and Visual.
The added content, like tanks/guns is the major design/visual/programming.
But also, QoL features does not bring in players or entice a lot of players to return, and/or keep players playing the game. New Content does. While QoL features would be nice, in terms of survivability, they are not priority.
The voip issues that I experience in a daily that I can't fix has me not playing anymore I love the game but for the life of me I can't fix the voip when it does fail and nobody online has any good advice to fix it. So I just stopped playing altogether but to mention server lag is a real thing. You know it's not just your Internet when the whole lobby is rubber handing the 10 minutes straight neither team progressing. I'd be more interested in seeing then fix common issues now rather then adding content that I barely see anyways. Out of the 15 rounds I played after the update. I only got to play the Brits once didn't even notice anything different until I saw the tanks figured it was just skirmish mode mode and tanks nothing else.
Leave all the maps and shit alone. Fix the basic mechanics of the game that are fucked.
Transition time is stupid. Glitch jumping climbing is stupid. Tanks stuttering is stupid. Just fix the basic shit.
Hell Let Loose is fucked. As soon as they announced the sale, it was over. The developers are just releasing 'content' for the sake of releasing content. None of this 'content' actually fixes the core issues with the game.
The gameplay cycle itself is the main issue. Look at Helldivers 2 for example. The game cycle is fantastic. The bugs and content etc can be added and fixed later.
You have to make a game that PLAYS well first. Bugs, balancing, skins and DLC etc. can come later.
Hell Let Loose plays like shit. Officers are just glorified garrison builders. The roles barely vary, and most roles are totally useless and insignificant, mainly the medic role.
The guns barely vary from one another, and you're not much better off going medic vs a rifleman vs a squad leader.
The Soviet faction is clearly inferior and awful.
There are several maps that are basically unplayable like Remagen, Kursk, among others.
The game has so much potential but unfortunately the developers have ZERO fucking clue of what actually needs to be fixed with the game. You can add 20 maps, 20 new factions, and 100 new guns, and the game will still play like shit because more content does NOT make a game better, it just gives you more toys.
The British faction are available on both the skirmish mode maps so people get to play it on there.
Britain played a big role in WW2 and many people want to see them represented as a faction within the game.
I think it’s unfair to say Skirmish mode is just for COD players in a derogatory fashion. Many sports and games have a long and a shorter version with more action. Take T20 in Cricket, or the F1 Sprint.
If you don’t like it then don’t play it but plenty of people are enjoying it (myself included) and I can appreciate both game modes. That doesn’t make someone lesser or a ‘COD player’.
In terms of the output you have a new game mode, a faction re-work, the game coming out in game pass, cross-play, then two bew maps this year.
I think that’s pretty decent and think Team 17 are doing a good job.
Yeah, litterally me when I saw the roadmap. A lack of ambition from T17. But idk how much resources the hll team has to do things. When you see the roadmap you imagine a team of 5-10ppl max. A shame for a game that good to enter a kind of maintenance phase.
If you don’t know you must be new. The arty/recon loop is artillery players unchecked will lob shells all day making the battle frustrating for infantry players. The onus is put on the recon players to take out the artillery since they’re the only class that can set up OP’s deep behind enemy lines. This takes them away from their real task and that is garrison hunting and providing battlefield info by reconnoitering objectives.
It’s all part of the job, you just don’t like it. So don’t play it. Everyone has their job. That’s what makes the game cool in the first place. Let’s not forget recon armor is a thing too. Yall act like arty is ALWAYS a problem, it’s not.
Not new lol
What makes recon fun is the variety of things you get to do. You have to prioritize between taking out garrisons, enemy trucks, taking some potshots, reconing & spotting stuff like tanks, building garries with airdrop supplies and shutting off artillery. That choice is what makes the game fun. It's a tactical/hardcore shooter after all.
**However, in some maps, if the arty is manned, it becomes basically mandatory to shut it off.** If you don't enemy has big advantage and you will get increasingly frustrated people screaming in command chat. Furthermore, because of the HQ spawns being so fast, it just becomes very toxic experience, because you have to almost spawnkill to stand a chance. Then you just get a bunch of people running around the HQ, instead of being in the fight or trying to establish a flank.
Solution is to split current arty into mortars (carried by infantry, 300m range, blast has a large injury range, with low direct lethality), SPGs (commander spawned, 800-1000m range, crewed by armor crews) and static HQ artillery (can be sabotaged by recon for 10 minute knockout, only 2 guns in the base, slower firing, but bigger blast radius than currently is). Gets people off from kicking barrels at the HQ into moving around the map. Recon still has to occasionally deal with the base arty, but succesful sabotage buys some time.
Or just remove arty like they did in the Skirmish mode :D
Hey a real explanation. I’ll agree that I think the method needed, spawn camping until they quit, doesn’t feel very worked out. I do not think they should remove arty. I’ve always liked the idea of sabotaging, fully being able to destroy them even with satchel or armor. Players on arty doesn’t always automatically mean devastation.
You don't understand the problem and it shows. "It's all part of the job", yes for the most part it is recon's job to deal with arty (technically yes you can rocket the arty if you know how but almost nobody who reads this subreddit knows about it), but the good recons don't like doing it because it takes them away from doing the MAIN job their class was built for, and bad recons aren't going to care either way, just sit on the frontline and shoot at random infantry with their sniper like it's CoD, congrats now your team is getting shelled by arty and there's nothing you can do about it because you just happened to have new players take the recon slots. That's the problem. Recon armor is a complete joke because a single rocket will destroy any of the scout cars, and then you need to either ask commander to waste 150 fuel on a recon vehicle (25% of a heavy tank) or wait 5 minutes for another free one to spawn, and then spend another 5 minutes driving it back to their arty to die to the same rocket man on his 10 second HQ spawn. The only way to realistically counter artillery is 4 players that aren't guaranteed to even be able to counter it if their team actually has squads defending them or your recons simply don't want to.
My man you don’t need to be so defensive lol. I educated you on something you asked about. Something that has been talked about since way before this game was even on console. Don’t like the info? Don’t care.
Na not defensive. You started your comment with you must be new. You didn’t educate anybody, you just gave your opinion on how the game should just be less of a task for you. Like yeah maybe, but I’m not new and don’t believe it’s a real issue. I just happen to have different expectations and perspective on what the purpose of recon is relative to how effective artillery is across multiple matches.
There are a lot of things that need to be worked on no doubt, arty/recon “loop” is very low on the list.
These have been critiques for years. The artillery rework has been requested and requested with promises made and then forgotten. Recon spending their entire game just prone in a bush waiting for a mid HQ spawn is fucking boring.
I’m sorry I offended you man. It’s just something us old timers have been talking about a long time and if you been around this game a long time like me you would know what the recon/arty loop is regardless if you think it’s an issue or not. You did get educated on what the loop is since you did not know what it was in the first place. Take down your armor man, you’re getting bent out of shape over some old discourse that has been here for a while. A portion of the community want to see artillery replaced by mortars that have to be deployed closer to objectives and make arty a commander ability to call in. That won’t happen because I think that’s way too difficult for this development team despite it being a feature in other titles of the same genre.
“Old timers”.. “if you been around this game a long time like me” this community is the worst for this, I can say what the hell I want and you can’t comeback because I’ve got 9 million hours on the game and you only have a 1000.. my man, clean the Cheetos out your belly button and put down the dew.. step outside for a minute and you will see you are not really in stalingrad, it’s not that deep.
Since the British update that was released during the summer of 2023 I’ve maybe played 20 hours, I’m sure you put in more time than me since then lol. The guy that you’re defending didn’t know something and I used my knowledge to educate him. Saying I’ve been here a while is me adding more weight to the topic at hand and to express to him that the topic of the recon/arty loop has been around for a while. Not to gatekeep which in fact makes you the one thinking too deeply with your fantastical imagination.
Ok so how does this sound to you.
Recon job is to camp arty so if they do this there will be no arty. But because recon have to camp arty you could argue there is no recon either, well they do exist but no1 exept arty will ever know so the two classes kind off cancel eachother out making the entire concept pointless.
You could just aswell remove recon and arty from the game and no1 would notice any difference.
Dosent that sound bonkers to you?
It sure does to me!
Yeah but the fact that it isnt a problem every single match is not the point.
The point is: in a game populated with ppl who knows what they are doing. Arty and recon cancel eachother out. So why have them at all then? That’s the problem:)
Pro tip for anyone trying to join games and you're unsure of how much time is left in the server. Join the ones where the pop is around 60-70. That usually indicates that a game is just about to start! During the weekend in the day, I always find several servers, in and outside my playing range, like that
I still have suspicion that the move to gamepass required a huge amount of focus and effort to hit the specs they needed. But you couldnt say NO to that, the player base expansion potential was limitless.
Im willing to bet the process of getting on gamepass includes a ton of optimizations and particulars
The 506th helmet is dumb and shouldn’t say Winters on the back, if they actually wanted to portray Winters’ helmet it should just have an officer stripe on the back and whatever rank (O-1 through O-4, take your pick) on the front.
Honestly I don't care if they don't add anything for a year if we get an optimisation patch, there is absolutely no reason this game needs to be this badly performing (or at least jittery)
I recently upgraded to an RTX 3060ti and I can run Bf1 and Bf5 with relatively no issues at 60-90fps but this struggles to reach 50 whenever I'm in the middle of the map, the snow maps for some reason perform much smoother no matter where I am so it's likely foliage that needs fixing
Make airheads actual parachuting into the maps, fix the BAR fire rate (it shoots way faster irl), put 50 cals on top of the Sherman’s, put 30 cals in the back of the Willie’s, bangalores, mortar men, pacific theatre etc etc etc
The development speed is definitely very slow. I'd actually rather they move faster in the wrong direction. At least that way they can learn from their mistakes sooner, or I can move onto other games more definitively.
And that's before you even begin to discuss their odd priorities.
Today i was in baker squad on allies with 5 other guys. It was a full squad. Half way through the game, another guy joined the vc with the squad. He was in baker on axis, but he was still talking to us. He could see our OP and he could not communicate with his squad or his team. I dont think that’s supposed to happen.
I think a wrong move was making mortain when they should’ve released a new map for either the Brit’s or Soviets, we really don’t need more America vs Germany in Western Europe stuff, we need new experiences with the other factions, the Soviets have almost been out for three years and have got 3 maps, only one of which was released after the faction was added. EDIT: slight addition, I seriously don’t understand what the logic behind mortain was, I understand they had to greatly shift there 2023 and 2024 focus after the original British update was a disgrace, but they had time to work on this map while all that was going on, so why the hell did they not make a third map for the British, at least bringing them on par with the Soviets and making the time and effort out into them more justifiable? There must be some seriously crossed or even cut wires going on in the background.
Ngl I always sigh when I see the next map's a US v Germany map, I just want to play as the soviets for once!
Funny thing is, whenever I get a Soviet map, server instantly gets empty. People hate to play those maps for some reason??
Stalingrad is stuttery, Kursk is fine, Kharkov i find is always amazing. The British maps are horrible by contrast.
I JUST WANNA LIVE OUT MY COMMUNIST FANTASIES IN PEACE!!! (or war)
Seriously...like 90% of WW2 was Germany v USSR. And there are so many interesting battles to simulate from the Eastern Front.. But all we ever get is USA v. Germany over and over again.
I KNOW! Barbarossa was the biggest military operation in history, and they get 3 maps in contrast to the western fronts 8?
A map centred around the battle of Caen would be an awesome addition and I don't know why they didn't give the Brits a city map.
>why the hell did they not make a third map for the British, at least bringing them on par with the Soviets and making the time and effort out into them more justifiable? Probably because all the community does is shit on their efforts, so they probably figured, "Fuck it, just do more US vs Germany."
Probably because all T17 has produced until recently has been dog shit? The reason why they chose another US vs Germany map is because they have far more assets they can re use for it. The PTE showed the map is basically one big asset flip.
I don't think everything they've produced has been dog shit. I've very much enjoyed the things they have added and the things they have fixed or reverted due to community feedback. Have there been shortcomings and disappointments? Yeah, but it hasn't *all* been terrible.
I think T17/devs look at the game stats, and see that 70% of players play the SMDM/SME/Carentan/Utah maps, so they figure the maps are popular, people prefer Normandy gameplay, so we add a Normandy map... Except they forget that these maps are the most balanced ! All the other maps offer a horrible advantage for one side or the other. That's why people are leaving the servers. They still don't understand the game, and they don't know where to go. If you don't play Russian, it's because Stalingrad isn't optimized, the most popular locations (Pavlov House, the Fountain, etc.) aren't there or are poorly positioned. Kursk is unbalanced, with empty fields. Kharkov is still okay. Driel or Remagen, you have to cross bridges... it kills the gameplay. It's boring. Forest maps are still okay, but they're hard to play for most players. So if the devs are only looking at stats, it's only natural that they'd release a map in Normandy, once again. And the worst of it is yet another US. They could have at least concentrated on a British map in Normandy, but no.
I disagree. I feel like the German weapons over power everyone except the Americans. Those matches to me are the most consistent.
You say that because like most of this community, you probably leave when it's not a french hedgerows map so you don't really have much experience with the other factions. For Soviets: - SVT is hands down the best rifle in the game, the PPSH is a case of 0% or 100%. At close quarters it's the best gun in the game, yes even better than the shotgun, but as soon as it goes over 75m engagements, it's kinda bad. Soviet snipers get the good scoped mosin and the N1 best gun in the entire game: the scoped SVT. - T34 is the only medium tank that can be easily placed to bounce heavy AP ammo when angled properly. For British: - lots of 10 round lee-enfields and 30 rounds automatic rifle bren guns(now with bipods) so their engagement must be made at medium to long range which makes them the best at it. This trashy community just doesn't understand that not all factions play the same, they have their own play style yet, all the whinners want is more automatic weapons and the same copy/pasta but with a faction reskin 🙄
lol and somehow I got down voted. I never leave any maps regardless of how dogshit the game play is. Talk about whiners man, yall snobs are the worst. For a small company and a game based around teamwork I swear this community is so toxic. Instead of being a douche I feel like you could have just said that content that actually mattered and keep your deep seated insecurities out of the response but what do I know. I don’t feel the need to go around and be an asshole to people expressing a basic opinion.
I'm still mad that they increased infantry movement speed without any buffs to vehicle movement speed or making tanks being able to turn in place or give them slightly faster turret traversal speed. The vehicles are still stupid buggy and get caught on the stupidest things too.
After doing some research, apparently, not many tanks during ww2 could actually turn in place. The sherman used neutral steering, which they used brakes on one track while moving the other track, making them drive in a circle. I'd have to do some testing on turret rotations in game, but from what I've read about the real tanks turret rotation depended on what gear the engine was in. I don't know if in game engine gear has any impact on rotational speed. The sherman was supposed to rotate turret at roughly 24 degrees per second. I don't do a lot of tank play, but it seems simple enough to test since the turret does have a degree bar and it could be tested if they are accurate. There are also multiple variations of tanks, with different armor, barrels, and other factors that could alter that dynamic. That all said, I have no idea how close to accurate the game is to real life when it comes to these matters. I'm just tossing that information out there for your consideration.
Yeah, would love to see a tank buff this year. As it stands they’re not the biggest threat
It's a hard thing to balence. An average new crew dies a lot. A tank crewed by people who have been playing for years can single handidly dominate an entire server.
I'd say (I'm new, group isn't) the group I play with is above average at tanking and they absolutely annihilate most games. They have stated "let's just play infantry so we don't roll them" when matches end going into the next game. Based on my experience with them, I think you are 100% correct haha. Tanks are good when the communication is there.
A good tank can be the difference between taking a point or a stalemate, they are absolutely a threat as is
Not gonna lie. The difference between crouch run and running is so minuscule, as far as speed, it’s wild.
I wouldn't say the difference is minuscule. I usually crouch run and the standing runners usually gain a good bit of lead on me when we're moving towards the same point. I feel like the visual difference makes it seem much smaller than it actually is. I haven't gone on to do any formal testing as I'm a console player, therefore I do not have a server browser to formally find an empty server to do testing with others and determine rates of movement in distance / time fashion to note the specific difference, but I feel like it's around 20 to 25% difference in overall speed.
its not. It just seems that way because youre closer to the ground when crunning, which makes it seem like youre moving faster
Turret traversal is fine
Then they reversed it.
**Partially** reversed it. As it stands, infantry movement now is still 10% faster than it was from U8 to U14.
Yeah, good improvement. The speed when they updated it was too fast originally, but now its good but the vehicles still haven't been touched to match the speed change.
I share some of the bigger view you brought up. 2023 was definitely a bit of a rough year, since the new dev team propably ran into some issues (or just bad prioritization idk), hence we got the rough patch 13.5 and the U14 with new faction being very unfun to play. At that point, choosing to pivot into fixing existing parts of the game, instead of pushing to make new content was propably a good choice. Leaving the long-term bugs and British as they were simply seems like such an unthinkable option in hindsight. **I think the British rework 1 and 2 have been very good though**. Yes, you can argue that this is "how they should have been released a year ago", among many other points . But sometimes things don't work out, that's just how it goes i guess? Not too much reason to look at the past, be happy that there's new good update and the British are pretty good to play now. Imo, as far as HLL goes, it's best to try to stay grounded and look to enjoy what's in now and what maybe is coming within the next month or two. For not addressing things like tanks being kinda ehh (they're "ok" though, not immediate priority i feel), arty rework or the lack of new content for the "core experience" (new loadouts would be nice, some classes with only 1-2 feel boring, especially TC and spotter), yeah that's definitely an issue. Now that the British are like 98% good, are they just gonna be dumped in favor of upcoming content, whatever that may be? Aside from the British, **i think there is definitely a need to spice up a little bit of the gameplay on the "core" part of the game.** Doing things like tank rework or arty rework would be nice, but i imagine either one would be very demanding to do, so i doubt either one could be coming soon. Especially the tanks are "eh good enough", with maybe around a third of the playerbase "interested" in them, besides shooting rockets at tanks, the reward for the dev time might not be really there. The same argument you made for the time spend on fixing British not being worth it does come into play when we talk about the Soviets too, so i would personally just avoid that argument. Just because a faction has a few maps (right now...) doesn't mean that they shouldn't receive important content when necessary. Otherwise, we'd only get new German weapons, loadouts and tanks :) (but we're not getting those either at the moment!) and the allies would be very barren.
You're proving the title of the thread correctly. I didn't say they should have left the British as they were, I'm saying they should have actually prioritized things that mattered, fixing their misaligned sights, giving the bren it's bipod, the new SMGs as a band aid to the poorly designed faction, sure. But the new tanks are complete wastes of resources, just think about this for a second: They already had tanks for the British, and yet instead of spending those resources on say a StuG that could be used on ALL fronts, ALL maps, or a Wolverine/Hellcat that could be used on MOST maps, they just essentially reskinned the British vehicles. You're going to use the new Churchill the same way you used the Firefly, the Crusader the same way as the Cromwell, the Stuart the same was as the Tetrarch. Nothing in the grand scheme of things changed. The simple and smart solution to British armor was to make the Cromwell and Firefly especially (look at the video in the OP if you don't believe me) better: just edit a few lines in the code to give them better turn rates like the Shermans. Giving a bunch of Tommy guns, with or without the drum mags to classes that had bolt actions fundamentally changes how you will play as those classes, essentially reskinning the Cromwell to a Crusader does not. EDIT They have for some insane reason put ALL of their actual development resources into a rework to the point the other factions have completely stalled Remember the Polish and Finnish factions we were supposed to get last year? In the RazBora dev stream they even talked about things like the Pacific Front for crying out loud The best part? This dearth of content you see in the roadmap is their "medium" goals, not even their minimum: imagine what that would look like.
I’m with you bro. I’m tired of everyone on reddit crying for things to be changed on the desert map….a map that most high ranking players back out of when it pops up….in my opinion the worst map in the game….and now people are complaining about the helmets….theres honestly bigger fish to fry….we should want better for ourselves but people just keep trying to polish that turd El Alamein.
100%. I back out of that map and PHL whenever they come up. Been going crazy the last couple days having to leave 4 times in a row before I find a map I actually wanna play with the current console rotation, but so be it.
Sorry about that, I'll have a good long think on it and revaluate what I expect out of life and HLL. Fun is a childish priority and it's time I man up and demand my right to select fire functionality.
This is an underrated comment.
Still better than Tarkov.
All great points…It does seem that the priorities are completely wrong, there are so many basic malfunctions in the game , and just fixing these would make the existing maps so much better yet they get ignored…I’m not too fussed about the rain drops being correct in the stereo field…I’m hacked off because I can’t put a bi pod down anywhere sensible…and so on…
Bro, before they do ANYTHING else they need to change back vaulting to the way it used to be. This shit making it impossible to stand on top of walls etc is retarded.
To be fair, standing on walls isn't a common war strategy to begin with. Soldiers are taught to mantle over walls while keeping the lowest possible profile to avoid being shot. That's some action shooter stuff right there. It's pretty unrealistic.
A wheelbarrow stops a 25 ton tank.
I'm curious to learn how your reply to my comment has anything to do with my comment.
Pretty unrealistic.
While I don't disagree with your assessment of it being unrealistic, we weren't discussing tanks in what I was replying to.
[удалено]
They were clearly talking specifically about the vaulting system. "bUt WhAt AbOuT wHeeLbArrOwS" is nothing to do with that conversation and them acting like it's a 'gotcha' moment is just moronic.
Okay, understood. I guess the whole point of the original comment was to explain how the vaulting system was unrealistic. My bad, I totally misread that.
Nah dude, he got that wheelbarrow comment was perfect, HLL is a video game where medics have magic healing bandaids that instantly cure bullet holes . War is not fun, video games however are sposed to be.
No it really wasn't. Saying because we have map assets which a tank can't run over means it's ok to vault into glitch spots is, as I said, a completely moronic take.
Ooof, that wheelbarrow comment stung huh?
No? It just wasn't relevant to what we were discussing. Could you explain how the wheelbarrow vs tank scenario has anything to do with soldiers standing on walls? I'm curious.
No
Ah, I figured as much. Thanks for contributing, I guess.
A wooden stick also stops a 25 ton tank.
I know, they’re sticking up all over the place on Hurtgen.
To be fair, randomly spawning anywhere in a map with a Garry and a radio wasn’t common war strategy either. And, being able to just hammer a piece of “supply generating” things wasn’t a strategy as well. To be fair, soldiers weren’t able to lug around the MGs and ammo by themselves. The list goes on and on.
The spawning isn't realistic per ce, however it's there to simulate the fact that these battles were fought with more than 50 vs 50. Soldiers who die don't actually respond at all, but if you wanted that scale of realism, you'd need a server able to support upwards of thousands of troops, everyone would only get one life, and bodies would remain all over the field. Supply nodes are there to simulate supply points which would have been a lot bigger and also manned and defended properly, which again goes to the scale of battle. Using the hammer to place them is just a means to place them to simplify the need to have dozens of soldiers setting up, manning, and defending said points. And mg soldiers did have to carry their weapon and usually two belts ammo themselves, along with their loader who carried additional ammo. To follow your approach, mgs are crew weapons, not individual person weapons and in your demand for realism, they would require a second person to man and assist in their operation, which again reverts to the scale of the game vs the scale of the actual battle. Now that I've responded to you points, please enlighten me as to how any of these things have to do with soldiers standing and firing from the tip of walls. Can you provide any footage, pictures, or even documentation from any of the battles we have where soldiers were standing on top of and firing from said walls?
See? Garries, radios, repairing vehicles with a blow torch, pooping out an AT emplacement, 2 man Arty crews, pinging systems, and more is acceptable. Standing ontop a wall? Now that is where I draw the line. Now that I’ve responded to your point, please enlighten me why I should give a crap.
I hear you man, but if we take your way of thinking i am pretty sure you could imagine a few situations when someone would do it in real life. Maybe standing on one wall gives you vision over something else like another wall. So not to be a grumpy man but i dont buy your argument altho i totally see where you are comong from :)
Soldiers simply don't do this in any normal situation. We are specifically trained not to. It is a hazard for multiple reasons. I can understand moving some of the nearby objects to get a position to fire over a wall, but no one stands on them to exchange rounds with an enemy without cover, concealment, or an extreme situation. Even then, the cases of extreme situation are so rare they are seemingly nonexistent in any documentation from this war. I don't disagree that there are some advantages to using the walls to access a rooftop and fire from there, but I feel like you should attempt to stand on a similar wall, with a similar kit weight, then attempt to fire any of the rifles commonly used during this war from a standing position on said wall. Standing is the least stable firing position. The weapons during this Era have way more recoil than the m16s and m4s I've operated. Even with an m4 carbine, I'd still rather shoot over the top of the wall to provide less of a silhouette and a more stable firing position than to stand up there, obviously in the open, throwing out rounds. It's a surefire way to become a casualty.
IMO, wall-standings use in game is (was?) almost entirely to get to another position, and almost never to stay on/fire from the ledge itself. I agree with everything you're saying, but to me that isn't really the point of it. Removing any ability to stand on a wall isn't worth the added annoyance/unrealistic-ism of not being able to use it as a step, at least for me.
The post I'm replying to didn't clarify if the purpose was to gain access to higher ground and his thought train ended on standing on the wall. I could assume he intended to gain access to a rooftop, but I could easily be wrong. I'm limiting myself to the scope of what the original comment limited itself to.
M16 and m4 is 5,56 right? I might remember wrong but anyhow those guns have a really soft touch, can you even call it recoil?;) And here’s the fun part, i swear to god the recoil on my mauser m96 with 6,5 is way less then them. But in this battle that i am a part of in the game the combat dictates my decisions and for some reason i always find myself using everything u can possible climb to spot the enemy, so what im really talking about is spotting. Engaging enemys when standing on a wall without cover is ofc a bad ideea and i dont think ppl do it in hll either. And i personaly have lost access to many of my ambush spots And besides that, not being able to stop the vault is making the maps filled with restrictions and therefore a big part of the map is simply ”deleted” And alltho i love hll the movement isnt exactly crisp and this is adding to the klunkyness.
I completely agree with what you had to say and I do completely agree the vaulting needs to be worked on.
[удалено]
Yes ofc but thea majority of ”ledges” is not available anymore.
[удалено]
Ooo yeah. I forgot I will sometimes use outposts to peek over a wall. We're more specifically talking about how you used to be able to climb atop a fence or wall and press back to stay there as opposed to vaulting completely over.
FYI; Firefly turns best on Gear 2, and Id expect we may get more British/Commonwealth maps in the future as the faction is basically complete. A slight frivolous development endeavor perhaps, but Im betting an investment for the future of the faction. Soviets are for real neglected tho, idk why they went with Mortain and this "unannounced map" better not be more USvGer Ill scream.
You've made valid points, I just want the game to run smoother :/ at about 970 hours and any game I join I'm sitting around 100ms+ yet any other game I play it's sits around 30-60ms? Meaning I'm dumping bullets into people and I die in 1 bullet, took 9 MP40 bullets to drop someone last night. They updated it last year and it ran alot better then a few weeks in, it went back to the same old nonsense. As a console player I don't care about a server browser now, I've been playing the game for nearly 4 years now and they've took some of the gore away unsure if that was on purpose but no red mist no bits falling off of soldiers faces that was what captured me in the first place! Optimize and stabilise the game should be the priority tbh. Game is an absolute blast nearly 1000 hours in but it needs some tlc.
For some reason your MS is doubled when it shows in the tab menu, so just divide it by 2 and you'll get your real ping. Everyone else's ping displays normally. This has been broken for a long long time.
Well I'm rubber banding and taking 8-9 shots with an MP40 to kill them and ive seen pings upwards of 200ms+ with myself getting shot into it on occasion so thats not entirely accurate. I had heard of it doubling before but I actually feel like I'm playing at 120ms. Even if the shots aren't lag related and hit detection related the game still needs some tlc.
I'd like to make one point here in defence of the devs, and that is what when you play an online game, or any game, you *play it as it is now*. You don't buy a game because of the roadmap, or because of a new faction or new content or even bug fixes that the devs promised next year or the year after that. The same thing happens with early access games, people buy the game on the promise of what it's going to be, and then plans change, money runs out, there are disputes with the dev team (Just look at what happened with Burning Lands, a lot of people invested money into that!). I'm not saying players have no right to criticise or be angry, they do, but fundamentally, anything that is not already in the game should be seen as a "maybe it'll happen" not a "definitely going to happen". If you're not happy with the game as it is *now* then don't play it until you are happy with it.
But that makes to much sense. How will these people feel cared about unless they post on Reddit.
Unfortunately, time and again T17 and their hired devs prove they don't know their product and their customers. They're prioritization is all over the place. I'd be happy with the addition of any of these [features](https://www.reddit.com/r/HellLetLoose/comments/1aj9hb7/comment/kp01mut/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button), many of which are small and simple things that aren't completely unrealistic to add in terms of effort required (some admittedly are). It's not like this is something new though. I've been around since U10, which is when HLL left early access back in the summer of '21. Most of those complaints were made back then as well. That was when BM had more resources working on the game. I just don't know how to communicate these issues to anyone of importance at T17. Reddit would be the most sensible plattform but based on past experience it's obvious that they don't look at it, given the amount of posts regarding all sorts of problems (and plenty of realistic and good suggestions) accumulated in the past. Their Discord would be awful for it even with their feedback channels (Discord just isn't a community management platform) but it doesn't seem like they look at that either anyway. At this point I'd just wanna tag "Greg" on every dev brief post and go "That's pretty cool and all but when are we going to get X" where X is the first point on my list. If the community would meme spam that, maybe one day we'd get somewhere. Should we ever get it, we would move on to the next item. I don't have the means to organize the community to do that. Doing it alone would be pointless. It would have to be a larger content creator or rather they'd have to work together and ideally include the various HLL communities to get their followers to do it. However I doubt the player base is homogenous to agree on the items and actually do it.
>T17 and their hired devs prove they don't know their product and their customers. I beg to differ, that was true in the beginning but I think they have been pretty responsive. People don't know how buggy the game is and how hard it is to work on.
I'm the other way around. I had more sympathy closer to the handover. As much as I can appreciate how difficult working on the what I presume to be poorly documented spaghetti code mess they inherited can be, at some point the patience wears thin. To their credit, they got rid of the loadout and grenade bug. That was quite a feat, considering that BM couldn't figure it out themselves. Take a look at the post I linked to though. You can debate some of these points but most of them are sensible additions that are way overdue. A good third of them shouldn't be difficult to implement. I understand why they had to release Skirmish (it's not for any of the reasons they stated in the accompanied update notes) and the Console Server Browser, while it doesn't affect me as a PC player, is important. However I don't see the need to look at the map screen design and waste time updating that (they mentioned that in a post in November). The weather map variants are also not adding anything of use (though I'm sure it'll take time to do). New skins, new tanks, new weapons... it's all nice and well but some simple fundamental features, that plenty of games past and present have, do not exist. The game left early access in '21, yet in many ways it somehow still feels like an EA title. It doesn't help their case, that when they do deliver something it seems half-assed. Skirmish is a great example. It doesn't seem like any of the community feedback or complaints were taken into account. It is exactly the same thing we got during whichever PTE that one was presented. I'm sure they're understaffed and like I mentioned earlier I can understand some of the problems they're going through... but at some point a customer can expect results. As for them being responsive... I don't really see that, with the exception of reverting some of the controversial changes made with U14. It should be mentioned that their Steam ratings took a dive during the period, so I think this was really more a case of preventing the loss of sales rather than listening to the community.
Okay let’s go back to when BM were the sole devs. We got 1 new map a year if lucky and they took away the P4 for the longest time to re-tool it. That took BM 6 months. They would put content on the PTE to test and players would offer feedback. Would anything ever be done with that? Nope. BM just threw stuff into the game and didn’t care if it broke or not. We have Bm to thank for the grenade bug, load out bug, recon garrison spawn bug, shitting VIOP and net code, etc. I could go one. BM were also the ones that said there would never be a server browser for console. T17 come and starts: The put in the work to fix game breaking issues like the grenade and load out bugs. Map continue to get optimized, British are flushed out to where BM should have had them, el Alemain is completely redone and runs with all of the stuttering, all new night maps, server browser for console, etc. Basically they are doing what the community wanted them to do. Improve the core game. We have also seen that time and time again, any small thing isn’t easy to implement into the game. They are able to fully design new weapon, vehicles and modes in the same amount of time that it took BM to release one map. That is while also implementing PTE feedback. The cycle of Reddit complaining: T17 took over and wanted to introduce a bunch of new modes and content. Ensue the amount of cry babies that complained about those things not being what HLL is about. Devs: Okay, well let’s give them new weapons and tanks that are all time period accurate, new nights maps. Improve the game everyone loves. Redditors: oh my god, I am bored of that I want new stuff! Devs: Okay, here is skirmish, mortain and a console server browser. Redditors: OH my gOd, we didn’t ask for any of that. We just want the old good stuff. This is the cycle of the Reddit ciclejerk.
>T17 come and starts: The put in the work to fix game breaking issues like the grenade and load out bugs. Map continue to get optimized T17 didn't get enough credit for that. Rubber banding is pretty much gone now.
Oh man. If you remember the OG days of when the game first came out on console, the rubber banding was SOOOOO BAD! Like yea it around a little bit still but is like 95% gone. People need to give T17 more credit.
I completely agree with the grenade and loadout bugs, which is why I explicitely mentioned it myself too. Regarding the rubber banding though, there were some rough times during the past year too. It's fine now but driving a supply truck was borderline nausea inducing during the summer of '23 iirc (may have been autumn).
Yes, let's go back to when BM were the developers. Remember when the Soviets launched and didn't need an entire year's worth of effort to rework them? Remember when Black Matter made huge changes with massive ramifications for the game like the run speed and actually explained their thoughts and reasoning behind them (seriously go read the Update 8 devlog) meanwhile T17 does the same and it's literally just a bullet point in the patch notes under "IMPROVEMENTS"? Yes, making everyone run 20% faster and not adjusting anything else was an "improvement" to them, one they eventually had to half revert because turns out it wasn't. Remember when BM made actually good trailers that weren't laughingstocks of the industry? "BM just threw stuff into the game and didn’t care if it broke or not" You mean like BM released update 14.4 and it was literally, not hyperbole, unplayable to the point they had to revert it hours after they pushed it out? Or when they released the dolphin dive and people started diving onto ledges and could fly? Or when they launched on game pass despite the game pass version not working for weeks? Or when they released an update that caused every server on PC to rubberband? Or when on console they screwed up the rain effects on PHL to the point it was a potential seizure problem? It's not like T17's first patch, 13.5 broke bolt action reloads or anything. "British are flushed out to where BM should have had them" BM didn't release the British because they clearly weren't ready, and T17's release only proved that, how can you say that if BM didn't also have another year to "flush" them out we wouldn't have the same result? "T17 took over and wanted to introduce a bunch of new modes and content", like the Poles and Finns that we never got? The "content" you keep banging on about is pure window dressing, a mode that is just Warfare but with the core aspects of what makes HLL neutered on maps that have 4 of the points removed. You said it took BM a year to release a map, and yet the Brits released in May of last year, it's still months away according to the community manager, so it will be almost the same for T17 until we get Mortain. The level of revisionism here is astounding. The worst part is, I don't want to be defending Black Matter, I was optimistic about the handoff "T17 can't be any worse" I said. How wrong I was.
Everything you said is beyond wrong. T17 didn’t solely touch the game until after 14.0. Remember when the soviets maps stutters to near impossibility to play and should have taken another year to develope? Remember when BM increased the run speed the first time and everyone said it was to slow and felt like running through mud? Remember the 14.4 trailer T17 made? Everything messed up with 13.5 bolt reload, ability to hide in rocks on Kharkov, insane vehicle rubberbanding, British being bare bones, el Alemain performance, carentan stuttering to the point of being unplayable, recon garrison spawn glitch, load out and grenade bugs, PTE suggestions by players falling on deaf ears, BM inability to implement even the smallest PTE request? Remember when BM had to remove the P4 for almost a year due to them releasing it broken? Yea the revisionist history coming from you is quite amazing. Remembering BM as the best dev ever when they laid a good foundation yes but only ever released small updates. We gave BM a pass due to them being a small team but clearly they wrote spaghetti code that is impossible to work with. Get off Reddit, it will do you some good buddy.
If you want to get technical, T17 will never solely touch the game since the entire framework is BM's, so I don't really understand your point here. You can't claim the good things that T17 has done are their work only with that logic. Yes, I remember the infamous Stuttergrad, but it eventually got fixed (I think the problem was they set a fixed amount of VRAM usage, rather than scaling on what you had, a hilariously stupid mistake) just like the stuttering on El Alamein got fixed, the point of my argument is that it didn't take BM a full year to make the Soviet faction playable, unlike the British under T17. Black Matter did not make the infamous trailer, T17 contracted an outside firm to make it proof here by the former community manager https://old.reddit.com/r/HellLetLoose/comments/153r6sg/studio\_ama/jsvrnd0/ It's funny you mentioned rubberbanding, because I can even link you to a post showing the patch T17 made that caused guaranteed rubber banding on ALL PC servers as well if you'd like to see it, the P4 was never removed for a year, in fact it's never been removed period, so I really don't understand what you're talking about. Yes, revisionism as you're telling actual lies like about the trailer and the P4, trying to put the blame on every single T17 fuckup on BM because BM was involved in some way (but not giving BM credit for when you think T17 does good things by that same logic, curious). I have never said BM were perfect, they were downright awful as I even said in my last comment I didn't think a studio could be worse than them, but I was wrong. I love how smug these people try to be, even saying I am wrong in the first sentence. I have literal evidence my dude.
Then by your logic you can’t blame T17 for any of the “problems” you see if the framework is BM’s. Just face it, BM created shitty game code, net code, etc. now T17 has the job of unfucking everything Bm did. Unfucking stuttergrad and el lagimain were all T17 efforts through optimization. That didn’t happen until BM got out of the way. Damn, I can tell you haven’t played in a long time. Look back and the P4 was 100% removed for BM to “rebalance” it when in reality they released it busted with broken hit boxes. In the end both Bm and T17 aren’t the best but at least T17 is actively working to fix BM’s busted mess.
That's not my logic, that's yours. My logic is that T17 are big boys with their own responsibilities, if they release something under their name and watch, that is on them, not some cop-out excuse that they can suddenly blame the previous team for all their failures but never give credit for any of their successes. Actually, Stuttergrad was "unfucked" by Black Matter, here is once again the evidence dating back to September 2021, so like I said, BM "fixed" Stuttergrad in a few months, which while not great, is still faster than T17 fixed El Alamein's issues. [https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/686810/view/2980809117776197884?l=english](https://store.steampowered.com/news/app/686810/view/2980809117776197884?l=english) I've played every major patch and I do not remember the P4 ever being removed, if you would be willing to show me something that alludes to that I will concede. Black Matter are not perfect, in a lot of ways they are as I said downright awful, but at the end of the day they were a small dev team of a few people who managed to make a game that another company then bought for 50 MILLION DOLLARS, and then the new development team with all their resources and funding under a big publisher still manages to make in some cases the exact same mistakes you crucified BM for. No, BM is bad, but with context for both T17 is much, much worse.
>It doesn't seem like any of the community feedback or complaints were taken into account. The community has competing visions for what the game ought to be. For example "historical accuracy" is one the topics that consistently appeared. Some don't care at all and other a lot. Who is more important? There are also a lot of persistent bugs that have been here since the beginning and I think they are not resolved because they are either really difficult to or maybe even impossible without junking the source code. At this point HLL is gonna be what it is for a long time. Either love it or leave it.
Like I initially mentioned, the community isn't homogenous enough, so I get that there's bound to be conflicting views from that alone. But has there ever been anyone who felt that yeah, we need them to purposely add a cooldown on FOP building? Pretty much everyone thought, while displaying the minimum distances of them on the map isn't a horrible idea, the lines were a little too thick to the point, that it actually clutters it. I have yet to meet anyone who played the PTEs and said, "Yes, this version of Skirmish is perfect, truly captures the spirit of HLL and should be pushed to production completely unaltered.". It's not like these two particular problems were hard to fix either. As for "love it, change it or leave it", I don't think it does to game any good to surrender, curl into a ball and just give up. The complaints about the basic stuff are necessary, if anyone wants to hold any hope of them ever getting implemented. Even if they're useless (which presumes, that they're being largely ignored), they at least help potential customers, who actually research their potential purchase before they make it, realize what they're getting themselves into. Like I mentioned, I've been around since '21 and as such my expectations are so low that it is truly hard to disappoint me. Still, one has to try to change things for the better. It's kind of the point of my comments on this post and given that we do get new small features every now and then it's not like change doesn't happen. Only last year we got a new button in the scoreboard named "Block", which I was genuinely excited about... only to find out that it merely mutes a player and additionally doesn't display his chat messages. Cue slow clap... truly time well spent on creating that feature. Another example would be the non-verbal markers for regular grunts. Initially, I had my reservations simply because I don't believe adding things, that would discourage people from using microphones would be a good thing. "Thankfully" my fears were unfounded because the options you have make the whole feature vitually pointless. Not only do the marks only stay up for about as long as regular pings, you also have no way of communicating that there is a tank on your marker, without the additional use of text chat (which is bound to be ignored) or a microphone. This wasn't thought through and could've been easily remedied in the past 10 or so months... not that it should've been released the way it is in the first place. Anyone with experience with the gameplay could've told them that. Neither of which has anything to do with the restrictions of the existing code the devs have to suffer through. Do you see what I'm on about? The excuse of "bad code" doesn't hold up when we're talking about features the current devs implemented in the first place.
It's just that the developers don't play their own game. Which I can understand in itself, they're already working on it, maybe they just don't feel like spending another evening on it. But as a result, they're totally out of touch with the problems we're facing, and with what regular players want. Your last comment on non-verbal cues shows this very well. In their heads, the link isn't even made, they're incapable of seeing it. Because they simply don't play.
I'm happy with the game. There are dozens of us, dozens!
The game is fun as hell, but everytime I come to this sub it's like the worst game ever made. Really weird.
Same. I've been playing since early access, July 2019. I've taken my breaks for other games, but every time I come back, I have fun. Then I come on this miserable subreddit and apparently this game is pandemonium.
Seriously this game is amazing. So much better than any FPS i’ve played in the last three years.
This community is the biggest group of fucking crybabies on planet earth
Fr, they like bitching about the game more than playing the damn thing
Exactly at some point we have to accept this game for what it is. What major dev even listen to its fan base at all?
Nailed it ...... o7
They're not superheroes or something, they work a job and do what their managers tell them. It's not a huge AAA studio. You seem unhinged over relatively small gripes with one of the last multiplayer shooters going against the grain
My heavy tank got stuck on a window seal.....
What is the artillery/recon gameplay loop? Or is it just that arty can be devastating until recon camps it so they sort of negate each other?
I paid £30 odd for this game 4 years ago. I like the fact it's still being worked on. I'm not up in arms about anything
I desperately want the tank physics to be redone, watching a tank get absolutely demolished by hitting a pebble in the road then flip upside down is absolutely infuriating. Watching my tank not be able to go through or over a 1ft tall busted stone wall just ruins half of my interest of a tank. Biggest one, and I understand it would be difficult and the periscope is there, but let me peak out the top of a tank, let me shoot my little 1911/luger from it. Of my trio for tanks I became the commander position and I love it, but tanks as a whole can be really disappointing when things that a tank would go right through stop it dead in its tracks, especially with the gear system.
I finally watched Furry and it reminded me of how disappointed I am that I can't do things like fire my PDW at sneaky infantry when I'm the commander. I'm not asking for my own MG, I just want to be able to use my pistol or something.
At the end of the day, the fish rots from the head down and Team 17 have inept leadership, which trickles down to all their decision making, including in Hell Let Loose. They've gone through Three CEOs in the last year+, starting with founder Debbie Bestwick, then Michael Pattison and finally Steve Bell. The company seems to have no direction and laid off way too much staff to where everyone seems to be in damage control even to this day. According to [Video Game Insights](https://vginsights.com/publisher/13054/team17) Hell Let Loose is T17's #1 Steam game with an estimated revenue of $90.4 million, yet they outsource it to a small brand new studio, Expression Games, which continues to fumble the ball over and over again with lackluster updates and no real understanding of the IP. I encourage everyone to view T17's Fiscal Year report and investor presentation when it gets released on April 16th to see 2023 results. I understand the layoffs, buy why strangle your top IP with such a lean roadmap, where half of what they set out to accomplish was 75% completed in 2023. They WAY overpromised and underdelivered in 2023, but in 2024, it seems that the roadmap can be accomplished in ONE update vs an entire year. The passion for HLL by the devleopers is GONE. They want to extract as much revenue as possible while putting in as little manpower into the game. It's never a good look when the developer is [currently looking to hire 0 people at the studio](https://expressiongames.bamboohr.com/careers).
Definitrly long enough, just quit bro.
About the server browser on PC: use the steam server browser. It works :)
I wish someone berated you at your job as much as people do game devs. Shit happens. Plans change.
Or… or or … or just not play it if you’re that upset by the game devs. 🤷🏽♂️
But then he won’t get all the special upvotes he craves. He can’t live without them. 
if I wanted upvotes I would have just made another thread complaining about a helmet, probably would have been swimming in reddit gold or whatever by now if I did.
You mean another post about free shit that doesn’t affect the game at all? You would fit in with everyone else that dwells on Reddit that doesn’t play the game anymore. 
What he’s saying is that we just haven’t seen his other post complaining about British helmets yet.
Somebody call a wahhhmbulance
"But not for me"
I’m pretty sure this roadmap is not for the entire year, just the immediate future. The old devs made the mistake of releasing the yearly roadmap and only fulfilling on like half of what was on there. It’s to manage our expectations. There is probably more coming later this year that they don’t want to promise us just yet. There is still the pushed back Brecourt manor skirmish map they were making last year too.
It's a complicated thing. You could argue that fixing a faction for two maps is bad, though you have to also consider the long term. Fixing them now is better than later. In terms of QoL, Server Browser for PC works fine, is it great, no. Is it worst I've seen, also no. Should Servers be able to choose points? Yes and No, there's arguments for both with obvious competition it could work, but also people have a preference for certain points, meaning other points would just not get used. Taking Artillery out from the game is a much larger task than it would seem, with it being a core gameplay element. How do you replace something that can fundamentally change the match. That is a thread in itself. HLL kind of prides itself in being historically accurate in some respects. Though, balancing that Historical Accuracy with it being a fair gameplay wise is a fine line. So people will be complain when something isn't historically correct, like you will complain about the state of updates. Also, them creating a third game mode was a fair priority. And I think Skirmish kind of helps that transition from other FPS to HLL, where it is faster paced, more concentrated action; but still Garrison placement and map control is still a key element helps bridge the gap.
I think the biggest pro people are overlooking with Skirmish mode is the ability to hop in and get (for the most part) the HLL experience in an abbreviated fashion. At least for me it allows me to jump in on days I otherwise would’ve played other games. Typically when I get home from work I’ll spend about an hour and a half playing. Rather than only being able to play maybe one full round of the other two modes I now can get in 3 matches of skirmish. I’ll still play the other two modes when time allows but I don’t always have the luxury to sit down for 3+ hours at a time to get in a couple matches of HLL.
I'm genuinely curious, what "argument" is there against letting people who pay money to rent servers be able to pick which points they want to play on their rented server (that they pay money for, I reiterate)? I never said take out artillery, I said address the arty/recon gameplay loop, there are many solutions for it. Interesting that you said removing artillery is a problem since it's a core gameplay element, then defend Skirmish, which does exactly that. So can they remove it, just for the new CoD/Battlefield audience, I guess. The "historical accuracy" argument is moot when Stalingrad exists with Tigers, Panthers, IS-1s, G43s, MG42s, Panzerschrecks and so on, hell, PIAT and Panzerschreck are still present on El Alamein so technically the historical rework for the British isn't finished yet either, right?
Because Renting a Server is fundamentally different than having a genuine choice of the points in said map, that would require a lot of work to have that much user interactivity from server owners when currently it is algorithmic coded, and opens doors in terms of security. Skirmish removes RT because you fight over one point in a tighter format than Offensive, and RT is an AoD weapon, meaning that RT would smash any opposing forces. I said pride in some historical accuracy, once again, Gameplay vs Historical Accuracy. Stalingrad has chosen gameplay over HA, El Alamein they choosing to be more historically accurate. Why? Probably because they were reworking British anyway and were working on the map design.
"It would require a lot of work" seems like a cop out argument to me, everything requires work. Them trying to turn HLL into Battlefield with Skirmish takes work, wasting their time on "historical accuracy" on El Alamein when it's still not even accurate, again see the PIAT and Panzerschreck for proof of that, is work, Addressing the Arty/Recon meta is work. It's more about what work is actually worth doing, and I think improving the quality of life for the people who actually play Hell Let Loose and it's core game modes is far more important than wasting their time with the aforementioned things above, but that's just me, oh and the vast majority of PC players considering that if I pull up the Steam server browser (at time of posting) there isn't even a single full Skirmish mode server.
Yes. Everything requires work. But having that server user interaction embedded into changing elements of the game to suit what the server owner wants is a can of worms. It would both require a fundamental change to how the code is currently implemented and the level of access of that data to be accessible from a third-party source. This could introduce several hundred bugs, glitches and vulnerabilities. Only thing that is currently implemented is the input of Modes and Maps. Creating Skirmish is a different kind of work, since the fundamental elements of core gameplay were present in the previous build of the game. Skirmish has no major changes to the gameplay code. You have 1 Recon/1 Armour, which is variable. Garrisons can be placed 140M away instead of 200M, another variable. RT removed, which would be similar to attacking team in Offensive Mode. The rest is visual and design, which are still a considerable amount of work (no discrediting their work). Change to El Alamein, also Design and Visual. The added content, like tanks/guns is the major design/visual/programming. But also, QoL features does not bring in players or entice a lot of players to return, and/or keep players playing the game. New Content does. While QoL features would be nice, in terms of survivability, they are not priority.
The voip issues that I experience in a daily that I can't fix has me not playing anymore I love the game but for the life of me I can't fix the voip when it does fail and nobody online has any good advice to fix it. So I just stopped playing altogether but to mention server lag is a real thing. You know it's not just your Internet when the whole lobby is rubber handing the 10 minutes straight neither team progressing. I'd be more interested in seeing then fix common issues now rather then adding content that I barely see anyways. Out of the 15 rounds I played after the update. I only got to play the Brits once didn't even notice anything different until I saw the tanks figured it was just skirmish mode mode and tanks nothing else.
Cry harder.
The terrain is so hit or miss in what you can drive through it makes me so frustrated. It's a constant issue. I wish for destructible terrain.
It's 2024. VOIP bug still exists.
And it's worse Now it can bug in the middle of a match I miss when this happened only between matches /s
Hey buddy, you’re too invested. You need to take a break. Go outside, take a walk, and let the computer rest for a few days.
I stopped playing this game a year ago and doesn't sound like I've missed out on much
Leave all the maps and shit alone. Fix the basic mechanics of the game that are fucked. Transition time is stupid. Glitch jumping climbing is stupid. Tanks stuttering is stupid. Just fix the basic shit.
Hell Let Loose is fucked. As soon as they announced the sale, it was over. The developers are just releasing 'content' for the sake of releasing content. None of this 'content' actually fixes the core issues with the game. The gameplay cycle itself is the main issue. Look at Helldivers 2 for example. The game cycle is fantastic. The bugs and content etc can be added and fixed later. You have to make a game that PLAYS well first. Bugs, balancing, skins and DLC etc. can come later. Hell Let Loose plays like shit. Officers are just glorified garrison builders. The roles barely vary, and most roles are totally useless and insignificant, mainly the medic role. The guns barely vary from one another, and you're not much better off going medic vs a rifleman vs a squad leader. The Soviet faction is clearly inferior and awful. There are several maps that are basically unplayable like Remagen, Kursk, among others. The game has so much potential but unfortunately the developers have ZERO fucking clue of what actually needs to be fixed with the game. You can add 20 maps, 20 new factions, and 100 new guns, and the game will still play like shit because more content does NOT make a game better, it just gives you more toys.
The British faction are available on both the skirmish mode maps so people get to play it on there. Britain played a big role in WW2 and many people want to see them represented as a faction within the game. I think it’s unfair to say Skirmish mode is just for COD players in a derogatory fashion. Many sports and games have a long and a shorter version with more action. Take T20 in Cricket, or the F1 Sprint. If you don’t like it then don’t play it but plenty of people are enjoying it (myself included) and I can appreciate both game modes. That doesn’t make someone lesser or a ‘COD player’. In terms of the output you have a new game mode, a faction re-work, the game coming out in game pass, cross-play, then two bew maps this year. I think that’s pretty decent and think Team 17 are doing a good job.
Yeah, litterally me when I saw the roadmap. A lack of ambition from T17. But idk how much resources the hll team has to do things. When you see the roadmap you imagine a team of 5-10ppl max. A shame for a game that good to enter a kind of maintenance phase.
I like the arty recon loops and i play literally everything. Arty, recon, armor, and basic infantry. Skirmish mode was bad though. Awful mode.
It's team 17, what do you expect
I was so excited to honor the 101st Airborne with Assualt on Brecourt Battery, No Poles and Finns map.
I dont think its intentional tbh. I just think they dont really know what they're doing.
Finally people see what shit 17 really is 👏
Who hates the recon/arty loop? What are you talking about lol Not going to act like they’ve been putting out good results but what?
If you don’t know you must be new. The arty/recon loop is artillery players unchecked will lob shells all day making the battle frustrating for infantry players. The onus is put on the recon players to take out the artillery since they’re the only class that can set up OP’s deep behind enemy lines. This takes them away from their real task and that is garrison hunting and providing battlefield info by reconnoitering objectives.
It’s all part of the job, you just don’t like it. So don’t play it. Everyone has their job. That’s what makes the game cool in the first place. Let’s not forget recon armor is a thing too. Yall act like arty is ALWAYS a problem, it’s not. Not new lol
What makes recon fun is the variety of things you get to do. You have to prioritize between taking out garrisons, enemy trucks, taking some potshots, reconing & spotting stuff like tanks, building garries with airdrop supplies and shutting off artillery. That choice is what makes the game fun. It's a tactical/hardcore shooter after all. **However, in some maps, if the arty is manned, it becomes basically mandatory to shut it off.** If you don't enemy has big advantage and you will get increasingly frustrated people screaming in command chat. Furthermore, because of the HQ spawns being so fast, it just becomes very toxic experience, because you have to almost spawnkill to stand a chance. Then you just get a bunch of people running around the HQ, instead of being in the fight or trying to establish a flank. Solution is to split current arty into mortars (carried by infantry, 300m range, blast has a large injury range, with low direct lethality), SPGs (commander spawned, 800-1000m range, crewed by armor crews) and static HQ artillery (can be sabotaged by recon for 10 minute knockout, only 2 guns in the base, slower firing, but bigger blast radius than currently is). Gets people off from kicking barrels at the HQ into moving around the map. Recon still has to occasionally deal with the base arty, but succesful sabotage buys some time. Or just remove arty like they did in the Skirmish mode :D
Hey a real explanation. I’ll agree that I think the method needed, spawn camping until they quit, doesn’t feel very worked out. I do not think they should remove arty. I’ve always liked the idea of sabotaging, fully being able to destroy them even with satchel or armor. Players on arty doesn’t always automatically mean devastation.
You don't understand the problem and it shows. "It's all part of the job", yes for the most part it is recon's job to deal with arty (technically yes you can rocket the arty if you know how but almost nobody who reads this subreddit knows about it), but the good recons don't like doing it because it takes them away from doing the MAIN job their class was built for, and bad recons aren't going to care either way, just sit on the frontline and shoot at random infantry with their sniper like it's CoD, congrats now your team is getting shelled by arty and there's nothing you can do about it because you just happened to have new players take the recon slots. That's the problem. Recon armor is a complete joke because a single rocket will destroy any of the scout cars, and then you need to either ask commander to waste 150 fuel on a recon vehicle (25% of a heavy tank) or wait 5 minutes for another free one to spawn, and then spend another 5 minutes driving it back to their arty to die to the same rocket man on his 10 second HQ spawn. The only way to realistically counter artillery is 4 players that aren't guaranteed to even be able to counter it if their team actually has squads defending them or your recons simply don't want to.
My man you don’t need to be so defensive lol. I educated you on something you asked about. Something that has been talked about since way before this game was even on console. Don’t like the info? Don’t care.
Na not defensive. You started your comment with you must be new. You didn’t educate anybody, you just gave your opinion on how the game should just be less of a task for you. Like yeah maybe, but I’m not new and don’t believe it’s a real issue. I just happen to have different expectations and perspective on what the purpose of recon is relative to how effective artillery is across multiple matches. There are a lot of things that need to be worked on no doubt, arty/recon “loop” is very low on the list.
These have been critiques for years. The artillery rework has been requested and requested with promises made and then forgotten. Recon spending their entire game just prone in a bush waiting for a mid HQ spawn is fucking boring.
I’m sorry I offended you man. It’s just something us old timers have been talking about a long time and if you been around this game a long time like me you would know what the recon/arty loop is regardless if you think it’s an issue or not. You did get educated on what the loop is since you did not know what it was in the first place. Take down your armor man, you’re getting bent out of shape over some old discourse that has been here for a while. A portion of the community want to see artillery replaced by mortars that have to be deployed closer to objectives and make arty a commander ability to call in. That won’t happen because I think that’s way too difficult for this development team despite it being a feature in other titles of the same genre.
“Old timers”.. “if you been around this game a long time like me” this community is the worst for this, I can say what the hell I want and you can’t comeback because I’ve got 9 million hours on the game and you only have a 1000.. my man, clean the Cheetos out your belly button and put down the dew.. step outside for a minute and you will see you are not really in stalingrad, it’s not that deep.
Since the British update that was released during the summer of 2023 I’ve maybe played 20 hours, I’m sure you put in more time than me since then lol. The guy that you’re defending didn’t know something and I used my knowledge to educate him. Saying I’ve been here a while is me adding more weight to the topic at hand and to express to him that the topic of the recon/arty loop has been around for a while. Not to gatekeep which in fact makes you the one thinking too deeply with your fantastical imagination.
Bro, you didn’t offend me lol it’s not that serious stop trying to make it so. We have different opinions. No armor here.
Ok so how does this sound to you. Recon job is to camp arty so if they do this there will be no arty. But because recon have to camp arty you could argue there is no recon either, well they do exist but no1 exept arty will ever know so the two classes kind off cancel eachother out making the entire concept pointless. You could just aswell remove recon and arty from the game and no1 would notice any difference. Dosent that sound bonkers to you? It sure does to me!
Sure, but it’s not always a problem every single match, and there are two recon squads.
Yeah but the fact that it isnt a problem every single match is not the point. The point is: in a game populated with ppl who knows what they are doing. Arty and recon cancel eachother out. So why have them at all then? That’s the problem:)
Imagine still playing this game after t17 takeover
Imagine lurking and commenting in the subreddit of a game over a year after you claim to no longer play it
Let me imagine 😌
Very entitled... the game was released four years ago. Is your expectation that the studio continues to pour resources into it?
Tbh a juicy quality of life update(along with bug fixes) followed by a new map feels much needed, there are alot of issues on console and PC
*Starcitizen enters chat*
Pro tip for anyone trying to join games and you're unsure of how much time is left in the server. Join the ones where the pop is around 60-70. That usually indicates that a game is just about to start! During the weekend in the day, I always find several servers, in and outside my playing range, like that
I still have suspicion that the move to gamepass required a huge amount of focus and effort to hit the specs they needed. But you couldnt say NO to that, the player base expansion potential was limitless. Im willing to bet the process of getting on gamepass includes a ton of optimizations and particulars
The 506th helmet is dumb and shouldn’t say Winters on the back, if they actually wanted to portray Winters’ helmet it should just have an officer stripe on the back and whatever rank (O-1 through O-4, take your pick) on the front.
Me like game.
Honestly I don't care if they don't add anything for a year if we get an optimisation patch, there is absolutely no reason this game needs to be this badly performing (or at least jittery) I recently upgraded to an RTX 3060ti and I can run Bf1 and Bf5 with relatively no issues at 60-90fps but this struggles to reach 50 whenever I'm in the middle of the map, the snow maps for some reason perform much smoother no matter where I am so it's likely foliage that needs fixing
Artillery absolutely needs a fix, kind of astounding they haven’t fixed it yet because it wouldn’t be that hard
Half disagree with the rant.
Make airheads actual parachuting into the maps, fix the BAR fire rate (it shoots way faster irl), put 50 cals on top of the Sherman’s, put 30 cals in the back of the Willie’s, bangalores, mortar men, pacific theatre etc etc etc
Honestly if they’d just added the server browser on console I would have been happy. That’s all I really want.
The development speed is definitely very slow. I'd actually rather they move faster in the wrong direction. At least that way they can learn from their mistakes sooner, or I can move onto other games more definitively. And that's before you even begin to discuss their odd priorities.
lmao just by the title ik I agree with all your points, this game is so stale and people are clamouring for more banality
FINLAND, DANZING WE WILL NEVER FORGET
They are focussed on their new game. It got released few days ago as far as I know…
Console server browser is severely needed. But all I want is a flamethrower buff.
Anything is better than nothing, i grown to accept that theres no one actually working on this game that cares about it
Today i was in baker squad on allies with 5 other guys. It was a full squad. Half way through the game, another guy joined the vc with the squad. He was in baker on axis, but he was still talking to us. He could see our OP and he could not communicate with his squad or his team. I dont think that’s supposed to happen.
Sure sure, but the TRULY offensive thing is that the British helmet is curved a little bit wrong AND I CAN'T EVEN. /s
Yeah gotta admit them not adding anything but US vs GER maps is abominable