Posts made by Johnbonne

I like the idea of themes, I just think one such as this would be too soon after the Sea of Thieves' promo, and it's too late to add it to the one with the hoverboard. ^^

The game really can't do better than the price it's at now at £3 per month, unless you're talking the "box" price of £24.99 (which I suppose has to be that high because there's nothing the devs could sell were it to go F2P).

As for Project Winter, that game is self-published. Ninja Theory is owned by Microsoft whose track record for supporting first party developers in terms of marketing is dire. A free weekend for a co-op survival game is great when nobody else is doing it, but there's loads of competitive multiplayer games that have had free weekends back-to-back and are continuing to do so - now's not the time for Bleeding Edge to do that to keep (more important than attracting atm) new players.

My thoughts exactly. If I had to find a reason why it's the way it is, it might be because people might keep upvoting the highlights, even their own, but what upvoting highlights does is beyond me (it's in every one of these hero games and yet has no provable purpose. Hm). But then the answer to that is just have the ones worth showing, or limit how many people can commend. Maybe commend the players for whatever commendations they earned rather than specific moments in the game. /shrug.

Like I say, I fully agree. ^^

I have two guesses, one being that the game was supposed to be F2P with microtransactions and this was just another way of spending that spare change from currency packs, and two, it might've been one of those cool ideas in development that was overlooked in practice. I'd like to go with the former as that implies they knew what they were doing until unforeseen circumstances changed things, as the latter would imply they didn't know what they were doing, which is worse.

If I were being really cynical about the first guess though, it'd be like how first person games sell skins when you can't see them, or aim-down-sights (ADS) recticle colours. It's not the first time Microsoft as a publisher has done this (see Forza 7's driver skins).

This'd be a great incentive to log in every day, especially if people are finding the rewards lacking at the moment. However, there is the problem of people doing things just for the daily and not the team's benefit. I can easily see people taking characters that are ill-suited to face an enemy team because they need to "Play 3 Matches as El Bastardo" or "Win a Match with Maeve", etc. If it's handing in Power Cells, I can easily see people selfishly grabbing all they can and handing them in for the daily, not caring if they're seperated from the team.

This isn't a fault of your idea nor the game, this is just an inherent trait with retention-based activities, least of all in a game that so heavily relies on people playing as a team.

@Gus-Malliwinks said in I'm sure this is already being talked about but.....BUTTERCUP??:

Her Burl is rediculously strong and can be used a little too often.

I suppose it has to be given it's not a practical dodge, but then I'd say it either has to be a self-heal where she stands still or it remains as is sans-healing. If it's to just be a self heal where she's sat there, she can't have any form of regenerating health out of combat (not that any of the characters really should anyway, that's what the powerups and Supports are for). But even then her held down (X) button attack allows her to build up a charge that can knockback foes, which makes me wonder if burl even needs to exist.

Buttercup reminds me of World of Warcraft's Monks and sometimes Guardian Druids, where they do little to mitigate the damage and just heal over it. Druid is definitely the better comparison as she's got more tools than any other character, and more than any should. She's multiple characters rolled into one, and needs to be split into about.... two, maybe three new ones.

So far I have not been able to successfully 1v1

This applies to all characters. If you want to 1v1, play Nidhoggr and Maeve - the former for the tank busting, the latter for the control.

even with parties except with El Bastardo and even then some times I am having to bust out the super last second.

That's fair enough, personally I find I die rather quickly as Buttercup if I'm buying my team time to escape. I mean, as quickly as a tank should die versus any other class, but still noticeably inescapable nonetheless. I do agree that Buttercup basically requires being surrounded at the cost of the team's survival. She definitely needs to be looked at, but I'm not sure what you can change barring a cheap and easy numbers fix, or removing her from the game and adding in her place two different characters.

Her super is kind of rediculous (turbo charged)

I have to agree, I always use this over the AoE stun especially if we've already got team members who can do that. It's not going to save her against a well coordinated team that focusses all its resources on her, and it's useless if her abilities are on cooldown, but I use it frequently enough to do serious damage even if I end up dying. This definitely needs a tweak, or maybe removal, it's just too many things in one ability.

paired with Burl it makes her way tankier than the 2 other tanks currently in the game.

I have to agree, but then I think that highlights the lack of mitigation and control the other tanks have. They have to compensate with attacks that need to be dodged and a high health pool. El Bastardo's really only a tank for the fact he does such high damage you want to keep away, and Makutu only has one ability I dread and that's his Barge ability. They both definitely need to tone down the damage, maybe the health, but definitely up the control to make them more desirable.

Am I just biased or is this a real issue?

You'll be biased no matter what. I'm bias toward Buttercup because I main her mostly out of necessity than choice, so I've had plenty of time to see where her strengths and weaknesses lie. Nobody ever calls for nerfs for a character they like, but when I'm saying there's something wrong that's saying a lot.

As others have already said she's too many characters rolled into one, and the answer is not necessarily to buff everyone else. There's clearly someone at Ninja Theory who likes her the most.

Personally I'd prefer the original ones but I can see how this would be good as an toggle-able feature, which would be especially useful in a future Ranked mode (and could mean more frequent pings then). Definitely want to see it added in some form though.

@RustyBlasty said in Whats the sense of shooting chars in a fighting game.:

@Johnbonne said in Whats the sense of shooting chars in a fighting game.:

I did not read your post before i posted mine. Now it looks kinda awkward

No worries, I second what additions you made. You did mention Tekken, so you've contributed something I didn't! xD

Too much heal,too much speed

The developers are going to need a bit more feedback than that to act. Why and how should these two things be nerfed? The healing-per-second? The healing-per-tick? The healing deficiency the longer he heals? In regards to speed, how slow do you want him to be? He's already easily stunlocked and only has two stamina; besides that and Firewall, he's not very defensible.

Zero Cool requires competition in the healing space before buffs and nerfs can be considered. Right now he's the most effective single target healer, I'll give you that, but with that comes the strategy of pushing him out of team's radius and the possibility of death. With high reward comes high risk.

I'm down with this. I disagree with CBreezy973's suggestion of giving XP though. By the time this mode is added the matchmaking should improve. If not, well, then maybe add XP (less than playing with and against real people, of course).

@Swanky-Sambo said in Whats the sense of shooting chars in a fighting game.:

Whats the sense of shooting chars in a fighting game.

Bleeding Edge is not strictly a fighting game. Even then, Mortal Kombat, Street Fighter, Injustice (as far as I know) all have projectile-based abilities and are considered fighting games. The former two especially would be considered the very kings of that particular hill.

As longer i play the game as more i ask myself why are there range heros and why so many.
Mekko will be another range hero as a tank so every role have range heros.

I struggle to understand your point. Bleeding Edge isn't a fighting game per se, but then what genre it really fits into I don't know. To me it's an arena shooter with melee characters.

Then i asked myself... would this game be better without range heros?

No. Just as all ranged is a horrible experience, all melee becomes a matter of who can get their abilities off first and who is stunlocked the least.

I mean the half cast are shooting heros.

Again, I struggle to understand your point. You're not wrong, 6 of the 12 (11 so far) characters are ranged.

I dont get the concept hey guys lets make a brawler game with auto aim and then add a lot of range chars to it?

I also dont understand wheres the fun in playing range heros in this game.

Some people like to used ranged weapons. I personally like the skill and strategy that comes from maintaining a minimum distance while keeping melee attackers away.

You dont do anything except standing outside the fight and holding the fire button.

Just like melee fighters, except you stand inside the fight. That is if we're going to be as reductionist as saying Spec Ops: The Line is a Doom clone.

If it were that easy then I'd be calling for more challenging gameplay, but it's not because ranged characters have to open the gap between themselves and their foes, and are equipped with abilities to do so. Just as melee characters have to close the gap and need to play characters that have the ability to do so.

Its like playing any other shoter game with autoaim and for me it would be boring as ....

The melee also has lock on, which come to think of it, is the cause of the most criticised aspects to The Witcher 3: Wild Hunt, one of the most critically acclaimed RPGs of this generation. Without it the game is much better for a lot of people.

I think it dont fit well to the game.

That's fine. The feeling of something not fitting well in a game is often hard to describe, I won't fault you if you can't elaborate.

Dont know but the game lacks in so many things hero balance, balance overall, connection, game mods, maps, things to unlock, and other small quality of life changes example switch mods in Dojo e.t.c

The only things I agree with in that list are connection, things to unlock and other small quality of life changes. Otherwise the game's great for that.

As more i playing the game in his current state the less I enjoy it and if it took months to make the game atleast playable and fun then im out.

That's natural for any game, but fair enough. The connection issues and being put in losing games is annoying me a fair bit.

Im still have hope for this game.

Good. I don't, but then I'm not hopeful for anything. I'm a realist, I'll believe good things will happen when they happen. But then I think good things have happened with this game. Whether more come, we shall see. ^^

I think the best support the developers can get is honest feedback. I for one submitted my review to one of my local newspaper's supplements, and gave it a 2/5. That's a decent score on my strict review score system; the best the average so-called AAA game is going to do is a 3/5 due to its decent - if unoriginal - gameplay and production values. I can't post the review here due to the copyright exchanging hands, but the general ups and downs were 'a solid framework with a brilliant game built upon it, but using it is a divided playerbase forced together with matchmaking that requires urgent attention'. Having said that, my Steam review due to its binary thumb system, is "recommended". On Xbox's system 2.6 is still half. That's still good.

Saying that the negative reviews is "bogus" and "unfair" isn't helpful to either players nor developers. If people have problems with the game (however wrong they may be), they should make them known to both parties. That said, I do think Bleeding Edge has deserved its much more helpful "Mostly Positive" rating on Steam which has a minimum word count, and discloses how many people make up its percentage breakdowns. 75% of the game's reviews are positive, based on the current number of 1084 reviews.

I can't fault your enthusiasm though. And I hope plenty of people ask you to add them to play with them. ^^

Zero Cool is very good at filling the gaps between others' damaging abilities, especially if he's got his Bot hovering by him chipping away at an enemy's health. If you're seeing four players against Zero Cool, his damage isn't going to save him. No amount of damage, health or self-healing would. What he needs to do is strategically place his Firewall, mount up and get away as his team try to create some distance between them.

ZC is a fantastic character for deterring weaker enemies trying to go for an easy Support kill. A good player will recognise he has greater range than a melee character, self healing and the means to give someone else ranged support.

So many view, but people do not like to respond

It could be either that something isn't worth responding to, or they agree and can't add anything to it.

I personally love to post on the forums and look at different post because people have wonderful idea and give back good feedback.

Same. It's always nice to have a few communities to take part in, as I dislike eye contact and can rarely get my words out properly verbally. Text communications are a godsend to me.

I do not have a lot of time to be on forums. I typically try to get on as soon as i get a great idea to improve the overall quality of the game regardless if i play on Xbox or PC.

"Great" is subjective, but you're right to express yourself and your ideal for the game.

I do not understand why people do not want to reply on forums and give their two cents.

See above; imagine if every person who read everything responded to it all. It'd be as exhausting to type it all out as it would be to read it. I find forums so boring when the best--, no, only thing you can say is "I agree". If the best I can do is "I disagree", I don't post because nobody learns anything from that. I only post when there's discourse to be had, or when I can try to coax more information about the subject matter out of someone who writes a single line in the OP.

No idea is a stupid idea.

In a perfect world you'd be right, but the phrase I'm familiar with - and is far more correct - is "the only stupid question is the one you don't ask". That means you're seeking knowledge, rather than imparting it unto others. A stupid idea is more contagious than any disease. However, in the context of sharing feedback in a video game that welcomes it, you're only right if the idea doesn't harm others' enjoyment of the game. It will affect someone's enjoyment though, but that's unavoidable. Doing nothing is going to affect someone's enjoyment, too.

I am sure the developers want Bleeding Edge to succeed.

I'd be very worried about the working conditions at Ninja Theory if they didn't want the game to succeed. This is sadly not unheard of. See crunch culture in other studios.

I have seen the insane levels of detail and how much quality Ninja Theory puts into the games the company creates.

Me too.

This is simply to everyone who are on the forums, please try to reply to post and give feedback or simply post your idea regardless if it gets views or not.

See above about if something is worth posting about or not. I'd hate to keep clicking on "Popular" posts finding that 20 of them are just "I agree", or "no". That's an even greater waste of time than seeing views and no typed reaction, tbh. But yes, I think if the devs are to listen to feedback they need to see differing opinions so they can know what will or will not be popular.

@HarpeRappeur313 said in White Flag:

Since solo players are allowed to fight against premades the match aren't often quite balanced so players need something to avoid to just wait until the enemy team finally complete the objective.

Surely the first logical step would be to fix matchmaking so that solo players don't fight premades? When the developers are fully confident in their matchmaking and can prove without uncertainty that this is the case, I'd be willing to discuss this topic again. This is before we even go into the unwritten rules of sportsmanship, as well as the increasing apathy of the playerbase the moment you introduce such a thing.

If 3 out of 4 players accept to surrender then the match end and the other team win. Every one is "happy".

Except that fourth player who voted 'no', and even then the other team might want to keep playing. I'm under no illusions that the fourth player was there for the fun of it and the other team would want to play "honourably", but there's always a chance however slim.

If there is to be a surrender button the ones who voted must receive little to no rewards to ensure they don't keep doing it, and the so-called winners must receive less so that they don't make it a battle of patience. I saw a thread where a group of players was keeping others away from objectives without capping them just to keep the match going and I assume farm XP.

I speak as a very sore loser who hates being matched with teams I don't mesh with in any game. For the health of the game more has to be done before a surrender button is implemented. ^^

Both of you are saying exactly what I'm thinking. If you've any more ideas, I'd be all for hearing them! ^^

4v4/2v2 mode

4v4 seems better than 2v2. I think the "meta" (if it can even be called that because it'd be so obvious) would be Zero Cool + Miko or a high damage dealer that can shrug off incoming blows.

5 rounds first to 3 wins
deaths per round no revives

I'm not sure this works in the game as it currently is. If healers were less of a necessity, or if tanks weren't so archetypically designed then maybe it could. A chain is only as strong as its weakest link, and all that.

ultimate pick up spawns in middle

A fun idea. I can see that being both frustrating when you don't get any kills with it, and a complete gamechanger if you do. See what I said earlier about the chain.

health and ultimate small pickups scattered around

Fine.

death circle after extended time to force a brawl.

I like this, plus it'd be a much greater punishment for those who run away.

This game honestly seems like it has the perfect mechanics for this already and I think it would be more enjoyable than the first to X point game mode they have currently.

It's a good addition but it'd make a poor replacement. Battlerite already exists for those who want it.

I want to point out that a games casual mode has a big effect on a game as a whole... this is really apparent when you look at games like heroes of the storm that it's quick match hurts the game more than helps.

Indeed. However, I like that there's casual games out there for me to enjoy without being concerned how the Ranked players' feedback is going to affect my experience. That said, I'd probably play Bleeding Edge's ranked mode if/when it comes.

I feel like the lasting effect of death is really popular with the kids these days

Doesn't the latest Battle Royale fad go against this? The moment you die you can just leave and take your participation rewards and join again. Although the BR craze confirms what you say, in that it makes death a much more significant thing than your standard Team Deathmatch.

and will promote team play since the only objective will be to out team fight the other team in this game mode... currently in some matches you have people just running around trying to be the solo hero looking for 1v1s... doing this in this mode would just get you 4v1 after your team dies off.

I'm not so sure. I think it would happen just as much here as it does already with damage boosts, especially wih collecting the Ultimate pickups.

I don't feel like this strays to far from the devs original design of wanting this game to be a more teamfight pvp focused Brawler moba than a pve farm up get fat moba.

I like the way you're approaching the subject. Like I say this would be a good addition to the game. I'd definitely be willing to play it if it came up in the random mode queue. +1 from me. ^^

I think forcing the tutorial is necessary, though my greatest concern is that people do it without paying attention, thinking they're better than the game. Of course then the question is if that's worse than the current situation where people simply don't bother. The answer, I think, is no. If we're going to lose players because they weren't going to do a tutorial I have to wonder if they were really that interested in the game in the first place.

I rarely see a Zero with or using the bot...played a match with someone who had no idea the bot was even a thing.

I can't believe I've been that player for the last few times I've played Zero Cool. Then again I've never really noticed his bot's damage, as someone giving or receiving it. xD

Indeed. In addition to this, an option to show the Stamina bar near the health bar so I can keep track of it like other UI elements. One thing I can't stand is expecting to dodge only to realise I've run out because I can hardly see the progress on it. If there's not an opacity setting for it already, that'd be grand too. ^^

It is very common for teams to run two healers because it is so strong and there is nothing you can do to lower their healing output.

Divide & Conquer works for me most of the time, but that most of the time is likely attributed to the successful team being well coordinated or the other team not being well coordinated. This is consistent with the entire game's pros and contras though.

The survivability of this specific comp is much too high and extremely annoying to play against

I agree. I've taken off my rose-tinted glasses and seen that Zero Cool was pretty damn powerful before the reduction in his healing without pause. Things like that to prevent spam healing would be nice, although with other healers' cooldowns you can't necessarily spam.

This needs to be fixed now. There are many ways to address this problem i think the best way is the following: create diminishing returns for picking more healers

I don't like where this is going. I did a video some time ago talking about people queueing as "fake roles" in MMOs, specifically WoW and ESO, and mentioned the idea of a buff/debuff negating any (or at least a large amount of) skill or loadout required to win a game.

This means that if a team picks two healers, each one will only heal for a % of their normal amount, let’s say 50% for example. If they pick three healers that number further decreases to 33.3%. In this system, the total healing output will still add up to be 100% rather than the current 200 or 300% which is insane

I'm totally against this on principle, so the numbers don't matter to me. I'm all for adjusting cooldowns, healing rates over time, tweaking radius of AoE and total healing, but not flat percentage increase/decreases depending on how many healers there are. While I agree there's a problem, to single out one class and ignore the others (and then having to balance their diminishing returns so to keep things even) doesn't really fix this.

I'd be willing to see this during a trial period but no further than that. I wouldn't want to play knowing there's a debuff the game puts in place against teams of all skill levels and coordination.

They don’t have to use the exact % i stated that can be balanced but the idea must be implemented in order to de-incentivize picking multiple healers. Currently there’s no tradeoff no punishment for doing so it’s a flat bonus that greatly increases your chances of winning.

The tradeoff is less health and damage, something Kulev players realise when I make a point about running them off and destroying their healing wells, or when I'll just chase Miko away from friend and foe, or Zero Cool when I rope him in. I get that the group is powerful when it has two healers, it needs to be looked at, but it's not a magical win button. If the problem is coordinated players running with two healers then the matchmaking needs to be looked at in addition to this.

By implementing my idea this will no longer be the case there will be a price to pay and you can still do it but will be much easier to counter and deal with

You're absolutely right. Your idea is effective, I can't argue that, but it's such a boring and easy way to go about things and not looking at the many roots of the problem that by fixing them the rest of the game would benefit. I find the problem is not the healer archetype (which I've always said needs more variety before we can truly talk balance), but Zero Cool in combination with other healers. Otherwise, I've no problem with taking them out or at worst temporarily seperating them from the pack.

I've seen these band aid fixes too many times in too many games to know this doesn't work in the long run, especially if more characters and possible roles are to be added. To compromise, I'd say this could be agreeable until a more permanent solution comes along, but said solution must take immediate priority if this is going to be implemented.