Anthem - EA’s next PR disaster after BF 5

Annie

Fire-Bear Cyberbully Girl
kiwifarms.net
The game is showing "bigger numbers" for "better guns", the problem is that there's some wacky bullshit health scaling nonsense going on. Some people have speculated that Anthem was so rushed out the door that they didn't have time to figure out an actual scaling power curve and instead just slapped together some smoke and mirrors to make it look like there was math in the game by having different weapons do % health damage instead of math damage. I can't wait for players to figure out what went wrong (because the developer will never admit it).
Fucking disgusts me, the thought of it. It's not even hard to do this correctly- make low enemies have shit health and their attacks do shit damage/your guns do shit damage, increase those numbers as shit goes on. Crota, from Destiny's second raid, had 2.25 million health, where as your common additional enemy would have, like, 600.

I was so excited to see what Bioware would do here, but I was burned hard by Destiny 2's lack of content out the gate and waited (plus the kickback from Andromeda probably wasn't a good sign). This is what happens when EA acquires a studio that isn't DICE (they're still fucking DICE hard, did anyone want WW2 battle royale?). They make you do shit fast and in a way that fucks the whole thing for everyone.
 

Tanner Glass

kiwifarms.net
Fucking disgusts me, the thought of it. It's not even hard to do this correctly- make low enemies have shit health and their attacks do shit damage/your guns do shit damage, increase those numbers as shit goes on. Crota, from Destiny's second raid, had 2.25 million health, where as your common additional enemy would have, like, 600.
It's even less excusable when you realize that Bioware already had to have done this to some degree in their previous games (Dragon Age, Mass Effect, KOTOR, etc). All they've ever really made are RPGs that all have had some degree of scaling.

Mass Effect even had guns with damage numbers on them that were accurate to the damage they would do to enemies.
 

Miller

You're gonna extract HIM?!
kiwifarms.net
I was so excited to see what Bioware would do here
You still had hope? Really? Even after ME:3, Cisquisition and Andromeda?
they're still fucking DICE hard, did anyone want WW2 battle royale?
I think DICE shares the same ideology as the higher ups at EA. They haven't made a good game in a long time. Battlefront 2 is still a pile of shit but they have to continue to support the game because Disney's shadow is behind them.
I don't know what they're planning for later this year, another bad Battlefront?
They make you do shit fast and in a way that fucks the whole thing for everyone.
No, I think the loot box debacle really fucked EA's plans so they had to switch to the "live service" gimmick (1/4 of the game shipped at launch, the rest of the cut content released -if they can- within the next 6 months and then they drop the support). I'm baffled by the fact that there's no server browser or player-owned servers in BFV, players are forced to use the matchmaking, even on PC. I know they've fucked something up with Frostbite since BF3 after someone had the great idea to put the server browser in a litteral web browser. The matchmaking and the server browser are still two big issues in BF1 and DICE never bothered to fix it, there's always a 50-50 chance of joining an empty server, that shit pretty much killed the playerbase.
 

Annie

Fire-Bear Cyberbully Girl
kiwifarms.net
You still had hope? Really? Even after ME:3, Cisquisition and Andromeda?

I think DICE shares the same ideology as the higher ups at EA. They haven't made a good game in a long time. Battlefront 2 is still a pile of shit but they have to continue to support the game because Disney's shadow is behind them.
I don't know what they're planning for later this year, another bad Battlefront?

No, I think the loot box debacle really fucked EA's plans so they had to switch to the "live service" gimmick (1/4 of the game shipped at launch, the rest of the cut content released -if they can- within the next 6 months and then they drop the support). I'm baffled by the fact that there's no server browser or player-owned servers in BFV, players are forced to use the matchmaking, even on PC. I know they've fucked something up with Frostbite since BF3 after someone had the great idea to put the server browser in a litteral web browser. The matchmaking and the server browser are still two big issues in BF1 and DICE never bothered to fix it, there's always a 50-50 chance of joining an empty server, that shit pretty much killed the playerbase.
I had hope because I figured Andromeda was a one off, them trying to do something that wouldn't work.
I haven't played any of the Dragon Age games, but I loved ME:3. I played it post red-green-blue patch, but still. Great score, decent enough gameplay, I enjoyed the story well enough too. Anthem seemed

I could agree DICE shares the same mentality as EA as of recent, the more I think about it. As bad as the first Battlefront remake was, it was just inoffensive and had little content- I don't recall loot boxes or anything completely fucking up gameplay. I know BF2 had awful loot boxes thanks to that controversy, though EA doesn't seem to care with MUT packs and whatnot bringing in dough. I probably have 100+ hours on BF4, and do recall the in-browser server browser, which was stupid, but it didn't completely fuck functionality- just a failed experiment by DICE, I thought.
I cannot believe they don't have player-owned or dedicated servers on PC for BFV, I recall you could buy a server on the EA website for BF4 at some point, which always seemed super consumer-friendly to me. BF1 I played maybe 5 or 6 hours of on PC, and I recall a dedicated server browser (I could be failing to remember shit properly here). I do remember disliking the lootbox model, though. Was heavier than BF4- basically all customization was from lootboxes iirc.

At the end of the day, I want BioWare to survive EA, even if deep down I know they won't. EA eats fucking studios and it's a shame the studio behind ME is either gonna eat shit or suck EA cock for eternity.
 

Miller

You're gonna extract HIM?!
kiwifarms.net
I want BioWare to survive EA
Why? There's no talent left.
I had hope because I figured Andromeda was a one off, them trying to do something that wouldn't work.
The problem is, Bioware was finished the second they were bought by EA. ME2 was a downgrade of the first game, with the linear missions and the powers streamlined (thanks Dean Takahashi). ME3 continued down that road with a shitty PC version, less gameplay features and a ridiculous ending. Cisquisition was an offline MMO and ME:A was a bad remake of ME1 and Cisquisition.
I recall you could buy a server on the EA website for BF4 at some point, which always seemed super consumer-friendly to me.
Yeah but I've heard that for BF1 there were less features but for the same price. Their biggest mistake in BF1 was to allow automatic weapons, it should've been bolt-action only. The game quickly turned into a run and gun CoD in a WW1 setting.
 
Reactions: Uncanny Valley

Annie

Fire-Bear Cyberbully Girl
kiwifarms.net
Why? There's no talent left.

The problem is, Bioware was finished the second they were bought by EA. ME2 was a downgrade of the first game, with the linear missions and the powers streamlined (thanks Dean Takahashi). ME3 continued down that road with a shitty PC version, less gameplay features and a ridiculous ending. Cisquisition was an offline MMO and ME:A was a bad remake of ME1 and Cisquisition.

Yeah but I've heard that for BF1 there were less features but for the same price. Their biggest mistake in BF1 was to allow automatic weapons, it should've been bolt-action only. The game quickly turned into a run and gun CoD in a WW1 setting.
Maybe I'm not remembering BioWare properly lmfao

I suppose your right, what of the good ME team is left at this point? It may be better they get fucked quickly so they can't shit up the name any further
 

robobobo

kiwifarms.net
The developers stated the gun leveling issue was a scaling mishap for a function that would buff lower-level characters who joined a higher-level character, so your newbie friend wouldn't get splatted like a bug if the two of you played together. Which makes sense and all, who wants to not be able to play with their friends if they aren't the same level? Except like all of the other fuckups, this too is something that should have been tested at some point but clearly wasn't.
 

Smaug's Smokey Hole

Fus Ro Dank
kiwifarms.net
No, I think the loot box debacle really fucked EA's plans so they had to switch to the "live service" gimmick (1/4 of the game shipped at launch, the rest of the cut content released -if they can- within the next 6 months and then they drop the support). I'm baffled by the fact that there's no server browser or player-owned servers in BFV, players are forced to use the matchmaking, even on PC. I know they've fucked something up with Frostbite since BF3 after someone had the great idea to put the server browser in a litteral web browser. The matchmaking and the server browser are still two big issues in BF1 and DICE never bothered to fix it, there's always a 50-50 chance of joining an empty server, that shit pretty much killed the playerbase.
DICE have a bad history with server browsers, remember Battlefield 2?
 

RomanesEuntDomus

May contain nuts.
True & Honest Fan
kiwifarms.net
The developers stated the gun leveling issue was a scaling mishap for a function that would buff lower-level characters who joined a higher-level character, so your newbie friend wouldn't get splatted like a bug if the two of you played together. Which makes sense and all, who wants to not be able to play with their friends if they aren't the same level? Except like all of the other fuckups, this too is something that should have been tested at some point but clearly wasn't.
I can understand that it's inconvenient if someone who's high-level wants to play with a newbie, but scaling damage to make the newbie viable in high-level play means that leveling literally has no meaning and any incentive to grind will also be taken away, even if the standard weapon doesn't end up more powerful than the high-tier gun. If all I can look forward to is a really meagre boost to my DPS, why even bother trying to get some good loot? Either I melt faces like there's no tomorrow where I once got my ass kicked or there's no point in getting the "better" weapon.

If they can't implement any mechanic to give low-level players something meaningful to do in a group with high-level players, maybe they should abondon that whole "make a group with large differences in the character level" thing.

That's where creative gamedesign would have come in handy.

Edit: Also this perfectly exposes how creatively bankrupt these devs truly are. Apparently, their best idea to differentiate weapons of different levels is to change a few numbers and make them do more damage.
How about going crazy with secondary effects, special abilities and so on?

The coolest fucking thing in old-school shooters always was picking up some signature weapon, like the BFG in Doom. Bioware already blew their load with the missile-spam weapon (which looks neat tbh) but maybe they could have allowed high-level characters to add more special features to their guns (such as a machinegun that uses a different ammo, has improved accuracy and so on).
Warhammer Vermintide did this pretty well. Weapons come in different tiers, the higher the tier, the more effects it can have, so there's guns that have reduced reload times, higher precision, armor piercing, larger magazines and so on.

A similar system would lead seasoned characters to breeze through encounters while new players would have to struggle a little more.
I am not a big fan of scaling health of enemies in games anyway. The difficulty should increase by the enemy having special tactics and abilities, not by them just absorbing ridiculous amounts of damage.
 
Last edited:
Reactions: Red Dragon
If they can't implement any mechanic to give low-level players something meaningful to do in a group with high-level players, maybe they should abondon that whole "make a group with large differences in the character level" thing.
Fuck your game design the marketing team just did a focus group with 50 plebs off the street and you're going to make changes to the game to appeal to the dumbest of those plebs or you're out of a job.
 

Oh Shit I'm Sorry

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
kiwifarms.net
At this stage, we have to ask what do we need to do to get rid of EA?
You'd have to find a way to strip them of their football licenses (as in both futbol and handegg) because as long as they have whales purchasing each new installment of Madden and FIFA and UT packs by the truckload then they'll have enough money to stay afloat.
 

Dick Justice

Where have all the cowdogs gone?
kiwifarms.net
I cannot believe they don't have player-owned or dedicated servers on PC for BFV, I recall you could buy a server on the EA website for BF4 at some point, which always seemed super consumer-friendly to me.
Unless I'm misunderstanding this is a terrible thing. Black Ops did the same only-one-dedicated-server-provider thing and it set off a huge shitstorm: inflated prices, reduced control over your server, and the very real possibility that you could be banned from hosting a server entirely. If EA's themselves offering the servers now, not only are you moving one step closer to vertical integration but you're effectively paying for EA's uptime. This is so utterly absurd, so far beyond the pale that if it were any publisher other than the big three I'd be 100% certain I'd read the post wrong BUT, nothing can be put past EA et al anymore.
 

Annie

Fire-Bear Cyberbully Girl
kiwifarms.net
Unless I'm misunderstanding this is a terrible thing. Black Ops did the same only-one-dedicated-server-provider thing and it set off a huge shitstorm: inflated prices, reduced control over your server, and the very real possibility that you could be banned from hosting a server entirely. If EA's themselves offering the servers now, not only are you moving one step closer to vertical integration but you're effectively paying for EA's uptime. This is so utterly absurd, so far beyond the pale that if it were any publisher other than the big three I'd be 100% certain I'd read the post wrong BUT, nothing can be put past EA et al anymore.
IIRC there was more than one provider for BF4 servers (you could buy/set up your own outside the EA ecosystem). The only purpose of allowing people to buy servers at the time was allowing the technologically impaired to set up games following their rules (you could do some really stupid shit, or make the server capacity super low/invite only sniper duel friends) as EA's official servers were basically just Large Conquest/Conquest/TDM games. It was $25 a month, but other groups selling servers did it much cheaper.
 
Tags
None

About Us

The Kiwi Farms is about eccentric individuals and communities on the Internet. We call them lolcows because they can be milked for amusement or laughs. Our community is bizarrely diverse and spectators are encouraged to join the discussion.

We do not place intrusive ads, host malware, sell data, or run crypto miners with your browser. If you experience these things, you have a virus. If your malware system says otherwise, it is faulty.

Supporting the Forum

How to Help

The Kiwi Farms is constantly attacked by insane people and very expensive to run. It would not be here without community support.

BTC: 1EiZnCKCb6Dc4biuto2gJyivwgPRM2YMEQ
BTC+SW: bc1qwv5fzv9u6arksw6ytf79gfvce078vprtc0m55s
ETH: 0xc1071c60ae27c8cc3c834e11289205f8f9c78ca5
LTC: LcDkAj4XxtoPWP5ucw75JadMcDfurwupet
XMR: 438fUMciiahbYemDyww6afT1atgqK3tSTX25SEmYknpmenTR6wvXDMeco1ThX2E8gBQgm9eKd1KAtEQvKzNMFrmjJJpiino