Tony Hawk: Battlepass

Unfortunatley, it doesn't work that way if one side has nukes.

A new map isn't gonna name everybody stop playing the old ones, look at Counter Strike's de_dust from 1999, people still play that map religiously even if there are new ones. The old maps were balanced and refined, and have been replaced with a completely imbalanced one. They've should've been available along side the new one.

I'm running a 1080 Ti, can still do most modern games on high - ultra on 90 FPS at 1440p. Played Hunt maxed out for years no issues, now I got everything on low except textures and barely scratch 70 between compounds. Searching the Steam forums and reddit shows similar complains from other people with even better hardware than mine.

Before I was finding players 2 seconds after I pressed search on Europe servers, now, even though player numbers skyrocketed after the patch, I can go make my self a cup of tea, come back and it's still hasn't found anything. Maybe it has something to do with my MMR rank.

Speaking of, you're right, I noticed the rank changes before the patch. I was always a 4 Star player, sometimes dipped in 5 Star after a good match, sometimes dipped into the 3 Star. Now I'm effortlessly sitting at 6 Stars. How do I know I improved skill wise if I'm already sitting at the max possible rank? Why are mediocre players like me suddenly bundled with sweatlords, who presumably are also 6 stars?

The skins now have rareities that determine their price, this came with the new update.

I'm not talking about minor bugs. The reason why I uninstalled is because if the boss gets killed in my compound by me or anybody else and I open the map, my game freezes and crashes on a regular basis. I validated the game files, I've updated my drivers, etc. It is straight up unplayable. I open the map on accident and I'm out. Again I'm not the only one with this problem. This is not some minor bug, this is absolutely unacceptable for a PvP game with permadeath. But that's the reality of this new shitty Hunt.

That's why DayZ has open experimental servers running months in advance, and their push to official is largely bug free. But, oh my, Crytek wants a big reveal for big update, who cares about playability, buy our Battlelass.

The best to come of this update was Port Sulfurs new single.

Top guy: least coherent German writing English.

Bottom guy: most coherent native English speaker in a CoD lobby.

How was that even an upgrade, they removed 2 maps, tanked the performance, increased the matchmaking time tenfold, reduced server performance, screwed up the ranking system, increased skin prices and introduced countless new bugs and crashes. If anything this was a huge downgrade.

They should've left Hunt the way it is and released Hunt 2, but they didn't have the balls because they knew nobody would play that shit. I guess releasing good old fashioned sequels to multiplayer games is bad for business, especially if you're such an incompetent dev. No, the new school way is to shitify you game in the name of a next gen update, and straight up deny everybody the ability to play the old version, see Overwatch, CS:GO, Squad, Warzone and now Hunt.

And don't come at me for saying Crytek is incompetent. Incompetent is the most polite thing they can be called. What they'be done is straight up malicious. You know how I know? Because you could sit me down, 8 hours a day 5 days a week, and my whole job for months would be nothing but to come up with the most dogshit UI possible, and I couldn't even come close to what they've decided to release. They must've had a whole TEAM of "experts" working 24/7 on that.

I swear I wish Steam would introduce a new rule. 2 hour refund window resets after every major parch, just to put the devs and publishers on a leash, when it comes to fucking up the product people have already paid for.

I really recommended you the 2nd Misson in the Soviet Campaign in CTA Gates of Hell. It took me a good 3 days to get through it but its as close to All Ghillied Up as you can get.

Quite the contrary, I love this subgenre more than any other one regarding shooters. But I've never seen it done right. If you know any game that doesn't end in frustration about the AI, please tell me.

I'm more than OK with micromanagement in games, but that's not how it should work in shooters. Men of War is a good example, it's a strategy series with a notorious amount of micromanagement, but the difference is, you get all the information needed to manage your units and you as a player are not part of the battlefield. No enemy unit can look up in the sky and shoot down your birds-eye camera. But in shooters, not only do you have limited information about your enemies and your own team, you can also be killed during micromanagement. This is not how it should work. Your friendlies being a little bit more pro active is the least one could ask for.

Like imagine you storm Osama's hideout and every time your soldiers have to ask you - the captain if its OK to shoot the terrorist in the room, or if its OK to move onto the next room, or its OK to take cover, that's how it feels.

And because you're essentially responsible for every single action of your team, you also feel responsible for every single mishap, whether it actually was your fault or not.

Also modern shooters themselves have already fairly demanding controls, pairing that with the ability to command different units means compromises have to be made in user experience. Your commands are usually limited by line of sight, you can't tell your units to advance behind this wall and search for cover. Arma 3 tries to address this issue with the "Command Mode" that let's you zoom out the camera to a birds-eye view, but that's essentially what a strategy game is anyway. You also can't command multiple squad simultaneously, each squad needs separate attention, while the AI computer can do everything at once, putting you even more at a disadvantage.

Developers also rarely bother implementing actual military techniques. The only 2 examples I can think of are Arma 3s combat advance (half the units cover, the other half moves) or Ready or Not's room clearing. What ends up happening is, people just take 4 machine gunners with scopes or 4 snipers, since all units essentially behave the same AI wise, there no downside to that.

In my opinion a squad control game should essentially play itself, meaning that if your character dies, the rest of your AI should be smart enough to finish the mission or at least retreat on their own, just like a real squad would if their commander dies. The challenge shouldn't come from janky controls or cheating AI, it should come from having the odds stacked against you. The goal shouldn't be to just finish the mission, but have everybody come out alive. A lot of those games become almost trivial, if you just leave the AI at spawn and run through the mission yourself.

I've played all the games you mentioned and I am a huge fan of squad control games. I've recently looked through Steam games with tags "single player" and "shooter"most recent titles are primarily arcade style shooters. One thing I've noticed while playing CTA Gates of Hell is that no AI, whether friendly or not has ever had any sense of self preservation, and this is true for any game. So what ends up happening is, you as a player always end up babysitting your AI. You expect a squad full of capable soldiers, but end up having one capable one and a punch of crayon eating babies. That's why most modern titles cheat with their friendly AI, making them immortal, invisible, teleporting them and giving then wall hacks. I've mostly given on the Idea that a squad control game can have satisfying AI interaction. If I have to tell every single unit where to go, who to shoot and when to hide, I'm not playing a shooter, I'm playing a strategy game in first person.

While I see that nothing like this currently exists on the market, I can kind of see why. The reason old school shooters look and play like they do is because of technical limitations. There's a reason new Ghost Recon games don't look like Ghost Recon 1 anymore, even if Ghost Recon 1 is still available and playable today. And if you're interested in ultra janky gameplay, we have Arma 3. I just don't understand who this game is for exactly.

"A lot if people flash the peace sign but I like to express peace verbally... Two."

Fusion reactors are roughly 10 years away.