I agree with you on the AI point, it needs to be super solid and reliable in its reactions. It's the most important thing in a stealth game, and arguably AIs in stealth games are the most difficult to program, so i fear the devs might have aimed too high. But we'll see.
Have to say Bob I am pumped for the game, however I held off for the time being until the dust settles. Pun intended!!! I love how the game looks and feel and once they iron out the AI and collision issues I will be buying it for sure. I am looking forward to the stealth side not having to gung-ho in a shooter type environment. It is really refreshing to see this type of game land on the market and the way they have presented it. Their ethos towards the development stand head and shoulders above many small indie and AAA games for sure. I will come and join you at some point mate. I can see you pushing loads of hours into this until the game our Ukrainian friends are lining up for us in December S.T.A.L.K.E.R. 2 mate. All the best Dave B
I remember being super-interested when I first saw that one original video popping off in the algorithm since I love the idea and the aesthetic, then I saw the second video from the same channel and started to get a bad feeling about it (the same feeling I got after the Callisto Protocol 'first gameplay footage' video tbh), like it was just going to boil down to being another third-person co-op extraction shooter; It just seems strange to me that so much of the game was marketed as being this unique out-of-the-box game from a team of "talented-but-rogue" developers and the resulting game is gonna be something you'd never see a 'big publisher' commit to and yet, from what I've seen, it's being shoehorned into one of the largest gaming metas of the last few years Maybe it's just 'not for me' but if that's the case then I can only hope it becomes a better game for.. well.. whomever it's designed for. In the meantime I'll just wait for the release version and see if it can pull me back in
I do agree, some consistency with aggression would be good, Like big mechs would never leave a battle to chase you or really at all, and like footsoldiers would chase you for a bit but not far if they are engaged in a big battle, but they would shoot at you since they cant really know what side youre on though maybe outside of combat, a squad may chase you for a long time, they would sort of get an agenda against you simply because theyre human
The game doesn't explain it to you and I agree the AI isn't where it needs to be I wouldn't expect it to be as predictable and easy to learn in other games. There are developer videos out there in which the developers talk about this. They aren't trying to make a game for everyone, they're trying to make something completely different then what we've seen in the last 20 years or so. There are threads out there being created by other players to help others in understanding what it going on with the AI. Not all enemies will attack you all the time. Some enemies are on missions that change throughout your raid and if you aren't deemed much of a threat vs the mission they're assigned to there's a good chance they will leave you alone. on the other side of the coin if you're in europa territory and you have something in your backpack, usually like an electronic containing Europa plans or intelligence or a high value piece of their technology they will be much more aggressive in killing you. As far as Water I think some of those complaints are manufactured. You can stock pile a lot of water so not to run out and if you don't have much of a back up of water then you shouldn't have much other gear or vendors to lose anyways. I agree the game has a lot of buggy AI quirks that need to be sorted out but the more I learn and play I think some of the AI stuff is really cool. I also found some of the AI aggressiveness is tied to the value of what's in your bags. The devs did this to help balance your wealth in the game. Your threat level also can carry from one raid to the next so if you have had some back to back successful runs and obtained a lot of high value loot your raids will get harder as the AI will see your threat level different. Dying also goes towards resetting your threat. My point with this long post is you can't assume that something you think seems random or makes no sense doesn't mean there isn't sense behind it. I might just mean you haven't figured it out yet. This doesn't apply to stupid pathing stuff and things where the AI goes bonkers as there is plenty of that that needs to be fixed also. For me the good out weighs the bad, the developers have had a patch each day since EA so that's good and the game is fun enough that I'd be happy to offer my feedback along with others and if this makes me toxic positive then so be it. Certainly better then being toxic negative.
The explanations don't make it any better really. How would a soldier on the front line know how good your last run was? Or what is in your bag? Why would they care enough to shoot you? Or not? Whatever the reasoning is for the AI there needs to be feedback in game as to why they are reacting as they do. I did some testing yesterday and there is mostly no rhyme or reason at the moment for what happens during my interactions with the AI. Full bags, empty bags, no ammo expect for the base in surplus weapons, loads of ammo, healing items or not. First or fifth run. It didn't really seem to matter. It was just random. In many cases, despite how aggressive they are to gunfire, it was simpler to take lots of ammo and clear them out when you realise it is very easy to bamboozle the AI. Which is not how the game is "supposed" to be played. There are more organic ways for the player to interact with the factions than something like the game knowing how good your last run was. You could have higher alert areas where the best loot is located, which gives you your risk versus reward. Maybe the AI notices that stuff was stolen from their base/area and so on the next run they are on greater alert if you are in their area. Lean into the faction system so over time the more you help one side you become wanted on the other but equally, the friendly side doesn't attack you unless you engage. Maybe patrols stop you and scan or search you. I like the idea of playing the everyman but having no real feedback as to why a patrol of soldiers may butcher an everyman beside being psychopaths is very frustrating and immersion breaking. I still haven't seen anything from the devs saying it is working as intended either, which is not surprising, so I'll ignore what some players are trying to imprint on the game and look forward to any updates and see where it leads.
@@SuperBitsandBob I agree and am not arguing. It all needs a bunch of work and polish. I’m just trying to point out there are video and written Q&As from the developers that explain a lot of how the AI is working in many cases. The devs have also stated they aren’t going to disclose all of the AI event triggers but that they are discoverable. My only point is that just because something appears random it doesn’t mean it is. That’s not always a good assumption to make. As far as how the front line would know` some of this I have no clue. Maybe they witnessed you and radioed their buddy’s and now a kill on site was issued? Gotta use your imagination. In any event, I have plenty of my own issues. Like why I lost enough faction overnight that I can only access timed extracts on scorched earth and it is wrecking me. All weapons are damaged, running out of money and now don’t want to bring anything with men because I’ll just lose it till I figure out how to raise my rep enough to get access to the easier extracts so I can build my inventory and weapons up
Was super excited for this since months back when I saw the first trailer, must have rewatched all of the official vids a dozen times each, loved everything the devs were saying. Then, after all the big talk of not being like large companies in regards to forcing gameplay through FOMO, they launch with this awful water system. I still can't believe it, hope they pull their head out of their ass - there is no amount of balancing or analyzing early acess data that will make a system that deletes your base if you don't play for a while in an OFFLINE, SINGLEPLAYER GAME any fun. Whole thing needs to be thrown out, painful reading all the cope from blind fanboys about how this garbage is actually good
I think the water system was a pretty cool idea, it’s also very forgiving since you can accumulate so much of it. Fact is, if you don’t have much water at your base you probably don’t have much gear or anything to lose. I guess if you put a bunch of hours in the beginning and then step away for 2 or 3 months before coming back that could be a problem but even then it doesn’t take much to get back to where you were.
@@projectgorgonfan the devs have stated in the Q&A that 1) they wanted to give you a reason to think about the game when not playing and 2) they wanted a consequence for neglecting your base. I can see how it may turn some players off but they have been clear they want something different than the million other games out there. It’s not for everyone but personally it doesn’t bother me since it’s easy to maintain and if I choose to ignore the game for a few months I know the consequences and I’ll either decide it is fun enough to build back up or I’ll have moved on to playing something else. It is just a game after all and there are far more frustrating mechanics in the game than worrying about what happens if I stop playing for 2 or 3 months.
@@Chin00k0 Because it works! People who simp for the devs are completely unable to counter any arguments against it. "Oh, the water system is super forgiving, it takes months to run out and you don't even think about it once you're stocked." OK why is it in the game then, what does it add? **radio silence**
Why would you refund? Is it that much of a sin to play at 40 fps? Wouldn't it have been cooler to see it run smoother as time goes on and the Devs optimize it?
