How would you get players back to the game? | Forums

[SerArthur-Dayne]

I know the game has got some serious issues, and ive been more critical of it than most because of the state of the unplayable connection (for most players, while some say they never have problems somehow?), immovable red nat type and p2p issues. But all that aside I really love what this game is and what the developers have created, the odd time I can connect. So I just wanted to see how people would go about bringing back players? provided the next patch just magically fixed connection issues for good, and the game was in a solid state. Ive seen figures of 2-3k players on a sunday afternoon, which dosent seem all that good, at least not for the long run.

Do you think casting a wide net and going free2play would work, and relying on steel IAP's from more people would work?

Or maybe some play for free weekends in the future, where noobs can get matched with noobs on these weekends?

ALSO, on a seperate~ish note, I think some changes could be made in the store and armours added to keep the players that are here now interested.

--- I think this game needs some merit based armours & ornaments seperate from steel. OR, if steel must be involved, maybe you can only unlock the ability to purcahse these special items with steel after completing some extremely difficult contracts?

I would like to see one amazing armour for each class added into the game. Like Apollyons armour for wardens (and other equally cool armours for other classes). But truly make this armor an impossible feat, so only a small fraction of the very best players could unlock it. For example: To unlock apollyons armour, you have to beat apollyon on realistic without taking a single hit. To unlock a special sword that matches her armour, you have to go on a 40 kill streak in mp?

I think some new executes and armours/swords/ornaments moving forward should be tied to both a steel system, and also challenges varying in difficulty, most should be quite hard to extremely difficult, otherwise it would be pointless if it wasnt difficulty.

Problem is that all customisation in the game atm, feels entirely pointless and really not worth fighting for, because none if it is merit based. If I see someone in a new armour I generally think, wow that person spent way too much on IAP steel, or, that person is probably one of those dangleberries in AI dominion that AFK and spin to win.

Anyway just interested to hear what others would do, and share my thoughts on customisation moving forward, cheers.

[Herbstlicht]

- make it fun to watch
incredible animations, many moves. yet, in tournaments, you onoy see this stupid guardchange animation as fast as one can pull it off mixed in with 1-2 attacks and the occasional gb. hilarious. but today, things with longlivety live due to the enjoyment of the community as a whole, that includes streamers who might get you new players.

- balance the game accordingly
the longer the lifecycle, the worse imbalances will become due to the community exploiting those in the worst ways possible. as long as major balancing issues remain known, people might stay away

- new content
maps, heros, game modes. you learned that people mostly enjoy fighting more then 100 hazards per map?

- try to show you care about your playerbase
i know, i almost put this in whatever i am writing right now, but please tell us your position towards console specific issues and balancing. we in fact are your biggest playerbase. and we might be those that had it best kinda, look at overwatch for example. it does not only work flawlessly, it gets patched simultanously despite (!) being balanced seperately.
manage to get shunned by us, and see what it gets you ...

[tbtsrjc]

I doubt there's much Ubisoft can or is willing to do to redeem themselves or this game. The concept was great, parts of the gameplay is fun but considering the stability issues, the nonexistent matchmaking and all the cheesers, there's little that can be done to save it IMO.

Earlier today I told someone I'm sticking it out until 1.5, but after playing tonight I officially quit. I'm a competent gamer and I find myself feeling more anger than joy from playing this game. It's not even about losing to the better player that makes me angry, it's the latency bugs that kill me. Killing someone and then having it pause and rewind back to the point of when he was about to die, and having him killing me instead makes my head want to explode. That crap should have been addressed before launch. Ubisoft will never get a dollar of my money ever again, that's a promise.

This game is GOTY (Gag Of The Year). You fooled us all, congrats you greedy phonies.

[Eddeh07]

I honestly don't think F2P weekends would work at this point. The problem as I see it is that you have a game that is already hard to master (which is the fun for the crowd who are already committed, but also the very thing that is off putting for the more casual player looking to try it out), in addition to the fact that the online community is so dour and vocally over-embittered by the issues they feel slighted by that it makes the entire prospect very unappealing to new players looking to get involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm frustrated with the way that Ubisoft handled certain issues (the two maps that went missing for a month with little explanation, the lack of response surrounding the frustrations with the global war system, the high steel prices for cosmetics etc), but I kinda feel like the most sour note under all of this is the overtly negative tone that the fans/forums have taken.

Given a new IP, a revolutionary fight mechanic, and an overall style of gameplay you haven't found anywhere else before, I gotta say, it's amazing the game is as half decent as it is, faults and all. I just wish the community who are supporting it could do so with a more optimistic tone than they are showing. Any attempt to google this game online and it comes back with almost exclusively negative posts. We're never going to build a solid new fan base when the playerbase is so toxicly bitter about the current state of affairs.

And to the OP: my beef's not with you mate, it's late and I'm just venting frustrations! You clearly like the game enough that you're looking to find ways to elevate a dwindling player base. That shows positivity in a way I think this forum deserves more of. Why else would you pose your suggestions. Cheers!

[DrExtrem]

- make it fun to watch
incredible animations, many moves. yet, in tournaments, you onoy see this stupid guardchange animation as fast as one can pull it off mixed in with 1-2 attacks and the occasional gb. hilarious. but today, things with longlivety live due to the enjoyment of the community as a whole, that includes streamers who might get you new players.

- balance the game accordingly
the longer the lifecycle, the worse imbalances will become due to the community exploiting those in the worst ways possible. as long as major balancing issues remain known, people might stay away

- new content
maps, heros, game modes. you learned that people mostly enjoy fighting more then 100 hazards per map?

- try to show you care about your playerbase
i know, i almost put this in whatever i am writing right now, but please tell us your position towards console specific issues and balancing. we in fact are your biggest playerbase. and we might be those that had it best kinda, look at overwatch for example. it does not only work flawlessly, it gets patched simultanously despite (!) being balanced seperately.
manage to get shunned by us, and see what it gets you ...

I can only nod in silent approval.

I might add the matchmaking system to your list. It mixes people from all over the world and it already did it with tens of thousands of players online. Skill levels range from "n00b of n00bs" to "god among gods" and distances, that should be measured light seconds.

Another point would be to adjust the console experiences, because right now, it simply is frustrating.

[Herbstlicht]

I honestly don't think F2P weekends would work at this point. The problem as I see it is that you have a game that is already hard to master (which is the fun for the crowd who are already committed, but also the very thing that is off putting for the more casual player looking to try it out), in addition to the fact that the online community is so dour and vocally over-embittered by the issues they feel slighted by that it makes the entire prospect very unappealing to new players looking to get involved.

Don't get me wrong, I'm frustrated with the way that Ubisoft handled certain issues (the two maps that went missing for a month with little explanation, the lack of response surrounding the frustrations with the global war system, the high steel prices for cosmetics etc), but I kinda feel like the most sour note under all of this is the overtly negative tone that the fans/forums have taken.

Given a new IP, a revolutionary fight mechanic, and an overall style of gameplay you haven't found anywhere else before, I gotta say, it's amazing the game is as half decent as it is, faults and all. I just wish the community who are supporting it could do so with a more optimistic tone than they are showing. Any attempt to google this game online and it comes back with almost exclusively negative posts. We're never going to build a solid new fan base when the playerbase is so toxicly bitter about the current state of affairs.

And to the OP: my beef's not with you mate, it's late and I'm just venting frustrations! You clearly like the game enough that you're looking to find ways to elevate a dwindling player base. That shows positivity in a way I think this forum deserves more of. Why else would you pose your suggestions. Cheers!

Well, I certanly like your positivity. But do you, per chance, play on PC? I personally already put a lot of time into this game, and i still often do enjoy it. But it has it's issues, some specially on console. When, however, did we even get a single word on this?

So I guess the negativity in the community is partly due to a diverse set of issues and partly due to bad handling of the community. Not that they don't try. They do their warriors den. They patch their game. But as a console player, you are left to feel as if you just funded the future for the pc-gamers and are left to rot. Because, who cares about the majority of players anyway? Console peasants can't block PK? Why should we care, on PC they could block her, but her sides did too much damage.
I mean really? No, surely not. But it feels like the message conveyed because no one is talking to us in those regards and so ignoring all of our concerns.

[Frappenstain]

I'd like to share my old experiencd about how Ubi works. I bought the T.C. Division when it first came out. Don't bothered with season pass becauseof possible fail since it's Ubi. I predicted true. Stormed the game, it was perfect "single player" experience. Too small online content, messy PVP (A.K.A. Dark -Hacker- Zone). I gave up till all DLC's come out and never played it. 3 months ago i re-checked and seen avesome revievs about it, i was like "what the heck they might have done to this game?" than bought season pass and hopped in. After short re-adjusting, i tasted the game again, all DLC's were real deal. Survival, hell yeah, Underground, dungeon crawl with guns, Last stand, finally TDM!, Incursions, awwesome team focused play without mercy, Legendary operations, sets, exotics, countless "solid" build possibilities, guns blazing again!

Yes, game is messy but i have faith that this game will take it's deserved place with time. Ubi is like that, first fail than rise up. Every company had it's habits. Some one does overpriced-cheap DLC, other one goes perfect at relase than ruin the game after and this Ubi reveals with big hope, fails at start, than fixes it for good.

[SerArthur-Dayne]

Realistically speaking, the more shaped and complex a game is, the less people you have playing it.

FH has certainly got its problems, big and small, but on a general scale there hasn't been a "fighting game" genre title in the PC market for a long, long time. If you've been playing games as long as I have, since the "dawn of video games" era, then you know that the modern trend of gaming has moved towards what people call "light/casual gamers" -- rather than serious players who are totally invested into learning every deep, profound aspect a game has.

The height of the "fighting games" was the 10-year period between '95 to 2005, when the very first 3D fighting game titles started to show up in the arcades. Since then, the internet has totally taken over, the generations of people have changed, and games nowadays usually target people with a very short attention span, and in turn offers game mechanics that are intuitive, easy to learn, not too complex -- and therefore no real depth, offers instant gratification, and smothers and covers a lot of its shortcomings through pretty GFX and high-pace gameplay.

Back in the late '90s, we had people who actually spent a lot of money in the arcades, sitting in front of Tekken or VF machines, playing hours a day, taking months and even years to perfect every small detail of what the game has to offer. Nowadays you can't expect to develop a game that is "deep and narrow" to enjoy and appeals to just a handful of hardcore players. You have to make a game that is "shallow and wide" to enjoy, and can draw in a lot of light/casual gamers to succeed.

In that retrospect, FH is essentially closer to fighting games of olden times, rather than modern-day action games. Like said there are still a slew of problems to be solved, but as a whole the concept of the fight and the system that supports that mode of fighting it is actually pretty deep -- not as "deep and narrow" as stuff like Tekken, VF, but certainly a heckuva lot deepr than fast-paced modern action games (like maybe DMC or God of War, for example) that feature flashy effects, exaggerated cool factor, 100-hit combos and etc etc..

Think about Dark Souls series. It's got a lot of bad-arse factor, a grim and gritty setting that may appeal to a lot of people, but the overall number of people who really enjoy that game and play it through its entirety to clear it, is relatively smaller than most other action games -- because its darn hard. You actually need to invest a LOT of time and practice into it, and its not really "beginner friendly" in anyway.

FH is sorta like that.

Truthfully speaking, I don't believe the numbers drop after launch is solely because of the mistakes the devs made. IMO, I'd estimate probably at least 1/3rd of the people who dropped FH and stopped playing it, are basically casual gamers who expected to get a cool looking hack-and-slash brawler game, sort of like a "Diablo in full-3D", with some bits and twists of realism plastered into it -- and probably did not expect the base system of the game required you to hone your skills in the same manner you would with a true 3D fighting game like Tekken and/or VF.

Therefore, I'm pretty much confident in the opinion that some of those people who dropped the game, are simply those who have trouble adapting to it. You know, if you're used to fighting games, then the odds are you have a friend whom you've recommended to play fighting games with you... and of course, you will remember how your friend can never seem to learn the basic flow of how fighting games are played, and will always remain ham-fisted and clumsy. After that you learn that fighting games just isn't a thing with your friend. It just doesn't tick for him. The art of fighting, its pieces don't fit together in his brain like it does for you.

...and I'm guessing probably somthing like 1/3rd of all who those who quit, were like that -- they either misinterpreted what FH is, or expected that they could adapt to it easily, but then got disillusioned, and then simply gave up -- and therefore, would never return.

Even at the height of the genre's success, the population within gamers that actually enjoyed and specialized in fighting games were really, really small. As it stands, FH was a really, really bold move in the fact that UbiMont structured it to be more of a real fighting game, rather than just another 3rd person hack-and-slash action game... but that comes at a price. FH would NEVER be as popular as some other action games people enjoy these days.

For me, the first and foremost reason I got FH was that it was really nostalgic. I thought to myself, "Now this looks like a fighting game I've not played for a long, long time" and it turned out I was right. I'm betting many people who jumped to the bandwagon also has extensive experience in 3D fighting games, and felt a certain amount of familiarity of what FH has offered. However I'm also betting for a lot of other people, they never really get that 'familiarity' with the game, because it is essentially a genre they don't enjoy particularly.


So some of the drops in population, honestly, was to be expected IMO.

I get what your saying, but I respectfully disagree on just few points though. I dont think games with depth are destined to be nieche games at all. Go to almost every forum from Battlefield, to wildlands, Battlefront (especially), to you name it, and I promise you one of the biggest complaints in this day and age is how totally shallow and overly unrewarding all these "meh" games are these days. People hate it. People hate it so much that someone with no money and just the swirling concept of building a game with some actual real proper depth has been community funded over 140 million dollars and still rapidly climbing, on what is still essentially a giant gamble of a shot to play a game with depth(Star Citizen). This show how much of a gap there is in the market for people who want depth, and that all thse big developers cant deliver, otherwise it certainly wouldnt have been crowdfunded so much. And all of that money has only come from the smallest of all 3 platforms, the PC playerbase.

Then games have come out like Bloodbourne, ( and more recently Dark souls 3) and have been the most praised, highly rated games weve seen in years across all platforms. Witcher 3 gave us serious depth, and its sitting on steam with a near flawless 97%. DS2 multiplayer was active for so long, and you can still find PVP in Dark souls 1!! I know every game has an initial droppoff rate after release and then settles, but I dont think this games large dropoff is due to people just "not liking the mechanics" or saying " its too hard, scr3w this!", I wholeheartedly believe its the innability of so many players being able to connect, error codes and p2p issues. And then to a lesser extent, balance, greedy IAP, people exploiting AFKing for steel, every cool armour linked to cash purchase instead of merit, and up untill recently the bad GB mechanic and OP revenge mode.

I make this claim because as of typing this, the highest rated review of steam is this, (and it sums it up to a tee); Imagine trying to eat a delicious meal with a plastic fork that breaks every thirty seconds. Almost every negative post highlights either solely, or first and foremost, the state of its connectivity and p2p, with some going on to name spammy moves/ or lack of a diverse moves at high level play, while most just blame connectivity. Ive yet to see a single forum post or steam review with anyone complaining the game is to difficult to have fun, or too compedative to get involved. I have 3 mates in Sydney that also got this game with me, all of us on broadband, nobody can get even a yellow NAT despite opening ports, checking ports you name it. Was over at my mates last weekend and we fired it up since launch and were going to take turns... No joke waited 70 minutes to find a dominion game, and about 40 error codes. Didnt bother again... And theyre/we're pretty over trying to join or muck around with ports at this stage.

I honestly think theres a TON of people that are in the exact same boat as we are, and im just wondering (provided they actuallt fixed this p2p, and some cheesy moves) how to get these people back to the game? The division failed at doing it, despite making huge strides and decent updates they never saw people just come back and try it for free, so im just wondering what could Ubi do at this stage to incentivise these players back? I hope theyfix it, because I honestly feel this game one of the best concepts weve seen in a decade. One that if properly backed and religiously supported, fixed and balanced, will see a huge playerbase grow akin to R6:S. I hope anyway!

[Kiiyor]

The majority of my friends are already back and enjoying it, after I mentioned the revenge nerf and class buffs to them. Teamplay is actually more about teamplay now that dominion isn't the 4v4 1v1 mode it used to be.

Now when I'm discussing game mechanics to them, I don't feel as though i'm trying desperately to get them to love the game like I do despite it's flaws by apologizing for terrible design.

I think in a few months, with more balance passes and new characters at the start of the next season, things will definitely pick up again.

[Alustar.exe]

Realistically speaking, the more shaped and complex a game is, the less people you have playing it.

FH has certainly got its problems, big and small, but on a general scale there hasn't been a "fighting game" genre title in the PC market for a long, long time. If you've been playing games as long as I have, since the "dawn of video games" era, then you know that the modern trend of gaming has moved towards what people call "light/casual gamers" -- rather than serious players who are totally invested into learning every deep, profound aspect a game has.

The height of the "fighting games" was the 10-year period between '95 to 2005, when the very first 3D fighting game titles started to show up in the arcades. Since then, the internet has totally taken over, the generations of people have changed, and games nowadays usually target people with a very short attention span, and in turn offers game mechanics that are intuitive, easy to learn, not too complex -- and therefore no real depth, offers instant gratification, and smothers and covers a lot of its shortcomings through pretty GFX and high-pace gameplay.

Back in the late '90s, we had people who actually spent a lot of money in the arcades, sitting in front of Tekken or VF machines, playing hours a day, taking months and even years to perfect every small detail of what the game has to offer. Nowadays you can't expect to develop a game that is "deep and narrow" to enjoy and appeals to just a handful of hardcore players. You have to make a game that is "shallow and wide" to enjoy, and can draw in a lot of light/casual gamers to succeed.

In that retrospect, FH is essentially closer to fighting games of olden times, rather than modern-day action games. Like said there are still a slew of problems to be solved, but as a whole the concept of the fight and the system that supports that mode of fighting it is actually pretty deep -- not as "deep and narrow" as stuff like Tekken, VF, but certainly a heckuva lot deepr than fast-paced modern action games (like maybe DMC or God of War, for example) that feature flashy effects, exaggerated cool factor, 100-hit combos and etc etc..

Think about Dark Souls series. It's got a lot of bad-arse factor, a grim and gritty setting that may appeal to a lot of people, but the overall number of people who really enjoy that game and play it through its entirety to clear it, is relatively smaller than most other action games -- because its darn hard. You actually need to invest a LOT of time and practice into it, and its not really "beginner friendly" in anyway.

FH is sorta like that.

Truthfully speaking, I don't believe the numbers drop after launch is solely because of the mistakes the devs made. IMO, I'd estimate probably at least 1/3rd of the people who dropped FH and stopped playing it, are basically casual gamers who expected to get a cool looking hack-and-slash brawler game, sort of like a "Diablo in full-3D", with some bits and twists of realism plastered into it -- and probably did not expect the base system of the game required you to hone your skills in the same manner you would with a true 3D fighting game like Tekken and/or VF.

Therefore, I'm pretty much confident in the opinion that some of those people who dropped the game, are simply those who have trouble adapting to it. You know, if you're used to fighting games, then the odds are you have a friend whom you've recommended to play fighting games with you... and of course, you will remember how your friend can never seem to learn the basic flow of how fighting games are played, and will always remain ham-fisted and clumsy. After that you learn that fighting games just isn't a thing with your friend. It just doesn't tick for him. The art of fighting, its pieces don't fit together in his brain like it does for you.

...and I'm guessing probably somthing like 1/3rd of all who those who quit, were like that -- they either misinterpreted what FH is, or expected that they could adapt to it easily, but then got disillusioned, and then simply gave up -- and therefore, would never return.

Even at the height of the genre's success, the population within gamers that actually enjoyed and specialized in fighting games were really, really small. As it stands, FH was a really, really bold move in the fact that UbiMont structured it to be more of a real fighting game, rather than just another 3rd person hack-and-slash action game... but that comes at a price. FH would NEVER be as popular as some other action games people enjoy these days.

For me, the first and foremost reason I got FH was that it was really nostalgic. I thought to myself, "Now this looks like a fighting game I've not played for a long, long time" and it turned out I was right. I'm betting many people who jumped to the bandwagon also has extensive experience in 3D fighting games, and felt a certain amount of familiarity of what FH has offered. However I'm also betting for a lot of other people, they never really get that 'familiarity' with the game, because it is essentially a genre they don't enjoy particularly.


So some of the drops in population, honestly, was to be expected IMO.

I play soul calibur religiously, this is how I felt about for honor exactly.