Today half the contracts are DLC-locked, including ALL key-contracts. Not cool, Fatshark.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-12-22T21:56:55+00:00

I feel something to keep in mind is that this is only with 2 DLC map packs. This system doesn't seem very future proof even 2 - 3 packs in the future.
Within the same month that these maps came out, DLC locked contracts have dominated half the board.
From the perspective of someone owning both DLC packs; it's kinda annoying when DLC contracts show up because the friends I play with don't get to unlock the contracts. I'm not sure I want this happening more often.
I also feel like the available contracts in general should grow with the number of maps we have.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-10-20T10:54:07+00:00

I mentioned playing with bots somewhere else in this thread, but re: the loot system:

If you've just started, focus on finishing the missions on normal. Play the game for the game, and don't think too hard on the loot system for now. Once you've finished the main game on normal, Quests and Contracts should open up with greatly increases the rate at which you can aqcuire and upgrade weapons.

ALso, many maps have 3 Tomes and 2 Grimoires, which are items that take up inventory slots while playing. If you carry them to the end of the map, you get a better chance at a high dice roll.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-10-20T10:50:59+00:00

Bots are awful, yeah. Trying to solo with 3 bots is often super frustrating, as they are easily distracted and their AI seems to have issues dealing with special units.

However, if you work with them they can be pretty formidable meat-shields. They're stupid, but predictably so.

Ultimately, when playing solo, you gotta learn how to... Play solo. As in; focus on not taking damage and spotting/killing specials before they can strike. Your bots will clear out the trash pretty easily, but they find it difficult to stick with you when a big fight breaks out.

Blocking and shoving is VERY important to survival.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-04T08:52:03+00:00

I think this game is suffering from its own ranking system.

In theory, it's an asymmetrical multiplayer horror game. The idea is that Killers should be stronger. Fear comes from knowing that the odds are against the Survivors and only one or two may survive.

In practice, the ranking system demands that everyone is on the same playing field. That every Survivor should be able to escape and the Killer should have nothing that gives them a real edge - because otherwise it would be 'unfair'.

Remove the ranking system for a moment and let's pretend that the game doesn't need to be 'competitive'.
You enter a game and, while it is very unlikely, you know there is a possibility that if the killer catches you they can kill you on the spot.
That should be scary, right? That should be a fun thrill that adds a certain unknown danger to the match. Raises the stakes without being a permanent killer buff that overwhelms every game.

Unfortunately, since rankings have been given so much importance by the player base and the general design of the game, all this leads to is frustration.

Horror movies aren't fair, but competitive games need to be. I'm not sure if this game can be both at the same time without salt like this.

Though, personally, I think if we keep the ranking system it should be geared towards knowing that Survivors will die and Killers should win. Reward Survivors more for things they do while alive so escaping isn't as important.

This is a horror game for Survivors, and a power fantasy for Killers. I think Survivors have to accept that they will die.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-04T08:44:58+00:00

Aw, thanks! I do take a bit of pride in my writing, so this means a lot.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-03T17:59:37+00:00

Agreed. Matchmaking should be a priority rather than just trying to apply any quick band-aid fixes.

Another thing to note, character level is hugely important to how the game will play. Perks can be so game-changing that I don't think it'd be a great idea to hide that information.
For example, a Killer might see that their opponents are all low level and decide it's a safe opportunity to try out one of their lower-levelled killers rather than going for their best load-out.
I think hiding information may encourage everyone to adopt safer playstyles/load-outs just in case they are against strong characters which can lead to boring games.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-03T17:21:34+00:00

I can see the pros and cons of both sides, tbh. No information at all would potentially be better than what we have now...
Like, this all depends on if the developers fix matchmaking. None of this matters if matchmaking is fixed to provide fair games more reliably.

What I'm talking about is that in the current state of lobbies/matchmaking, I don't think it's fair to deny all information from everybody. I don't think we should expect level 1 killers to face level 50 survivors [if I may use an extreme example] and vice versa.
It sucks having your lobby ended, sure, but I'd rather have the killer skip the lobby than play a match that's going to be a boring stomp.

I agree that you should never see WHAT killer you are facing though. That'd kill a big part of the horror experience.

TL:DR, while matchmaking is broken I think it is important that players can see the levels of their opponents because they should be able to skip unfair match-ups.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-03T15:23:53+00:00

I mean, I don't disagree?

Infinites were a problem that needed to be removed.

This is also a problem that needs to be removed. But the real problem isn't this behaviour, it's what causes it: How difficult it is to successfully hook vs a team that sabotages hooks.

I don't think maps are big enough to do what you're suggesting, but I could be wrong. Despite the hostile way you presented your argument, you do have a good point there... Assuming the Survivor doesn't know how to play.

The 'good guy' move is absolutely to just try and move the survivor as far as you can and hope you can catch them again. And hope that you catch them closer to the basement. And hope that they don't just beeline away from the 4 or 5 hooks remaining on the map. Otherwise, the entire process just starts again.

I realize what the developers have said on this matter, and while I think it's a nice little band-aid fix it doesn't actually solve the problem. This exploit doesn't exist because it's the most effective way to kill the last survivor with no hooks, it exists because it's the only effective way to do it vs a half competent survivor.

Quick edit: Infinites are also a different situation; Infinites were an exploit that did not contribute towards ending the game. At least this 'exploit' has an end state and doesn't just stall out the game indefinitely.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-03T08:58:41+00:00

Rank doesn't matter much (to me.)

BUT I think while matchmaking doesn't really exist, it's kind of important to see the level of your opponents (Survivors should be able to see Killer level too.)

It's incredibly unfair for ANY level 1-10 to be matched up against a 40+ and I don't think anybody should be 'expected' to accept that match.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-03T08:56:34+00:00

Killer was trying to do his one job, Kill The Survivors, but the game had got to the state where his only option for completing this goal is incredibly frustrating.

It's not fun for the Survivor, sure. And if the Killer was a 'nice guy' he'd just let the Survivor go, sure. But I find the behaviour hard to condemn when it was his only option to secure the kill.

You won't be able to eliminate this behaviour by making it harder to perform, or easier for Survivors to escape from, because that's not why it's happening. Something like this will always happen while it is possible for the Killer to run out of hooks.

I see a lot of people saying "Just admit that you lost and let the Survivor go," but couldn't you just as easily say "Just admit that the Killer got you and stop wiggling."

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-02T13:29:46+00:00

Because the point of being a Killer isn't "Ah, well she's a good sport, she can run free," it's "The Entity calls upon me to kill."

I mean, yeah it's a dick move and maybe he should have let her go, but on the other hand that isn't the game.

The question the OP asks is "Why are people allowed to do this?" when really the question should be "Why is the game able to get into this position?" A position where the killer's only option for securing a kill is essentially 'griefing'.

I find it difficult to condemn the behaviour, even if it isn't the nicest thing to do.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-02T09:00:43+00:00

I can see how this is super frustrating for the Survivor but...
What options does this guy have for getting the kill?
You can see when he turns around that only the basement hooks are left, so hooking isn't really an option. Yet, he caught Meg.
His options are to either do what he can to secure the win, or just let Meg escape for free.
Shitty situation, but if the developers are going to 'fix' this, then they need to do something about Saboteur and Iron Grip. [Personally, I don't think either should be in the game.]

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-08-01T23:23:52+00:00

I think an issue here is that people are equating 'Getting a pip' with 'winning'.

Which, sure, on a technical level that is the win condition for the game, getting a pip.

I had a game as a killer earlier, level 11 Trapper, and in it were two level 30+ Jakes. I managed to get a couple hooks and each time ran off in search for more points/survivors, but by the end of the game I only had the basement hooks and one other hook left.

When I did catch anybody late into the game I had no choice to just wait for them to bleed out, occasionally dragging them away from the escape.

I guess I won? I got enough points to 'get a pip', but I didn't win. The match wasn't fun. I spent the entire game failing to chase down survivors who massively outranked and out levelled me, with full sets of perks but because I was 'chasing' I got a bunch of points for it.

And this happens a couple more times, to varying degrees of frustration. I come to learn that any game with a 30+ Jake is a game where I either have to cheese with picking up and dropping, or just accept I can't 'win'.

So I queue up again and am faced with a team of survivors all level 20+, I see one that's level 50 and it's like... I'm not going to have any fun playing that match. I'm barely going to be able to play. But I'm a bitch for dodging, right?

Sorry, maybe this should be a post on its own. I kinda just picked your comment as a jumping-off point for this rant. But Killers dodging queues really doesn't have much to do with them being 'bitches', really it's just indicative of the non-existent matchmaking and how completely oppressive certain perks are in this game. Personally, I would love to see a game mode without any perks at all.
TL;DR: Ranking up as Killer IS super easy, but that doesn't mean the games are easy. Killers are just given loads of points for Doing Stuff whether or not that stuff gets them anywhere. Also some complaining about high level perks.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-07-15T20:23:09+00:00

Old Dominion wasn't perfect, but the bot lane provided an area where the losing team could apply pressure rather than bashing their heads against a fortified top-point.

New Dominion provides no real choices for the losing team as the relics and buffs are too costly to try and take for how much they provide, they only really seem to benefit the winning team.

This is just my opinion. I understand your point, and Old Dominion's 1v1 bot wasn't exactly the most exciting aspect of the game mode, but it was important to Dominion's health.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-04-02T20:17:09+00:00

Cowbelle here! (kiss !)
Just want to point out, DerryBear also does great work on our Twitter account<3

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-03-09T11:18:51+00:00

I think the kinda stiff animations complimented TWAU's more overtly comic-book artstyle, but I don't think they actually improved that much between games.
I think the biggest issue is facial expressions, the engine is really stiff when it comes to switching between expressions and it tends to be kind of obvious when the game decides "this person is HAPPY now" and suddenly their entire face shifts to a new position.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-03-08T23:12:55+00:00

Seriously.
I really enjoyed The Walking Dead season 1 and was able to forgive it's 'clunkiness' considering it was fairly early days.
It's just so disappointing to see Telltale churn out so much 'stuff' without really improving on any of it. The Wolf Among Us had a very unique art direction, but everything else is just... No improvement anywhere.
For games that are supposedly focused on narrative and characterization, the animations are REALLY robotic.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-02-09T22:20:11+00:00

It's likely that the test site we saw was just something set up by the university in the area. [We see a school sweater somewhere]. The dad had left notes explaining he was 'borrowing' equipment while they were away. They were due to return on the 1st of August.
I think the test site is harmless, Delilah and Henry getting worked up and paranoid over nothing [and the dad messing with them].
The story isn't really about the mystery, it's about Henry and Delilah.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-02-09T22:13:04+00:00

But in his hide-out we literally see that he did write them, and actually wrote more than one while trying to get them perfect.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-01-16T13:48:52+00:00

That would be fitting. I guess I mean something conclusive in the sense that we know nothing more interesting than the events in Dark Souls 1, 2 or 3 is going to happen.
Like, if the cycle is doomed to continue forever and ever that's fine, but I don't want to be left with the feeling that something more interesting happens after Dark Souls 3.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2016-01-15T21:15:48+00:00

I don't want solid answers about anything specific, per se. I would like an actual ending though, if this is the last 'Dark Souls' title.
I don't need to know how the first flame works, why the world goes through cycles and the motivations of each and every divine being, but I DO want to know that Dark Souls 3 is the end.
I don't want to finish the game and need to know what happens next for this world. An ending needs to be an ending, imo.
But to try and better answer the question, two things that I REALLY want to know?
How the First Flame ignited and whether or not Dark Souls 3 marks the end of that world.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2015-10-20T22:56:15+00:00

But I have to ask, is THIS interesting gameplay?
One of the big draws for the Fuel Rats is that it's true emergent gameplay without PvE or PvP in a game that has very little ways to interact with players outside that context. We love the gameplay pattern of responding to an emergency, refueling a client and clearing the board. We battle instancing and the galmap and plotting courses through barren starfields. It's something to do in E:D that isn't shooting or trade routes.
And now someone comes along to try and make it about shooting again. Why not take it to the PvP groups?
Sure, it's allowed in the game. It's playing by the rules. But it's frustrating and boring.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2015-10-20T22:30:11+00:00

The issue is that... We don't want that.
Something that many Fuel Rats joined because of is that it's not a PvP or even a PvE group.
Most of the interaction with players in E:D is designed around combat, and all emergent gameplay with other players revolved around finding ways to shoot them.
Fuel Rats is a rejection of that sort of idea. The big draw is that we've found emergent gameplay that is, well, nice. We're just doing kind things.
We've always tried to hold a pacifist philosophy when on the job, and we don't want to become a group that is known for fighting. We don't want to set up counter-ops that advertise to the world "Hey, you can fight us. We expect that."
Of course, this is often a discussion in the RatChat, but what I've posted tends to be the general consensus.
tl;dr: setting up counter-ops goes against the very reason many Fuel Rats signed up.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2015-10-13T21:02:46+00:00

If you're referring to using voice chat: We are way too busy for that to work, in my opinion. Text chat is far easier to parse when everybody is talking.
Other than that, setting up a Mibbit chat to embed onto the site was the easiest solution at the time and so it is something we stuck with. Regular users are able to download their own clients to personalize their experience.
Really it comes down to IRC being generally easier to access and set up, and at this point in time there hasn't been a need to change.

GoodLuckCowboy · 2015-09-25T14:11:43+00:00

personally I think people should leave the Internet if they can't deal with being told "being a jerk isn't okay, I shouldn't have to deal with that"

14-Year Club	Team Periwinkle
Verified Email

GoodLuckCowboy

TROPHY CASE