JA3 Features Poll

[Elite77]

A poll for various features of JA3 and whether you dislike them, think they need more work, think they need to be made more complex, or whether they should just be switched out with something different, but not because of complexity.

Note: entires for who voted are public.

Edited May 28, 2023 by Elite77

[Elite77]

Also the choices are multiple choice, so pick all that apply.

I would also like to expand on my personal observation that one good thing about 1.13, is that it really had this feeling like you had not just 1 starter pistol, or middle-of-the-range AR, you had like 5 of those pistols to choose from, and it was up to you to find the best pistol out of that range before you moved on to the next range. Imo, with weapon rosters that are only 20 weapons or 40 weapons in size, you really don't have that loop of trying to figure out not just how to get a better weapon, but how to get a better gun from within the range of acceptible guns currently. To where the upgrade isn't immediately or automatically clear.

[Wigen]

17 minutes ago, Elite77 said:

A poll for various features of JA3 and whether you dislike them, think they need more work, think they need to be made more complex, or whether they should just be switched out with something different, but not because of complexity.

But would these fixes be before or after the release of the game?

[Elite77]

Just now, Wigen said:

But would these fixes be before or after the release of the game?

Not fixes, I'm just surveying what people are happy or not happy with (or don't think is a big deal, or not a problem).

Somebody earlier said that they didn't have a good clear poll with more than one option and about more than one topic, so here it is.

[Reloecc]

Choices are not optional.. I didn't want to check anything on question 2, but I had to.. are you able to fix that?

[Elite77]

1 hour ago, Reloecc said:

Choices are not optional.. I didn't want to check anything on question 2, but I had to.. are you able to fix that?

I had no idea about that brother, sorry.

No I can't change it unfortunately, poll isn't perfect unfortunately.

[Image Miroir]

Without playing the game, to say "I want more of this, or less of that" is a bit ridiculous.

[Elite77]

By the way, for the record, I wouldn't mind face items like NVGs and headphones being included, or inventory being changed to be more complex, but I don't think it's a big deal if they aren't, I get that JA3 is the first installment in the franchise in a while, so expecting all features from the get go may be a bit unrealistic.

So I just wanted to add that in there.

I much more care about real issues that I think are: somewhat small (compared to 1.13) weapon count, no CTH, and how there's elements of a traditional RPG in JA3, to where you have abilities like take cover, run and gun (where you fire your SMG while moving through an area, not sure if that's an amazing ability, or like something which isn't anything more than a gimmick), etc.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Elite77

[DonBilbo]

Something didn’t work out. 

Edited May 29, 2023 by DonBilbo

[DonBilbo]

46 minutes ago, Elite77 said:

abilities like take cover, run and gun (where you fire your SMG while moving through an area, not sure if that's an amazing ability, or like something which isn't anything more than a gimmick), etc.

I don’t know if these abilities work out with the game yet, but why so negative upfront about new features? Is it bad to add some new stuff that may add some  more tactical options for combat. I mean taking cover and shooting while crossing an area doesn’t sound unrealistic to me. I will wait and see if they are useful in combat for me otherwise I just won’t use them.  I understand that many here have a precise idea of what a perfect successor to JA2 should look like, and that doesn't mean that one shouldn't express (constructive) criticism of what has beenseen, but a little more openness towards innovations couldn't hurt some here either.

[Raeven]

How about an option for 'none of the above' 🙂

[Elite77]

3 hours ago, DonBilbo said:

I don’t know if these abilities work out with the game yet, but why so negative upfront about new features? 

Because I don't like them? Lol. No offense.

I don't think I am being negative, if I was being negative I'd be lambasting JA3 up and down this forum, I'd not be making constructive or specific criticisms, I'd just be generically saying oh JA3's gonna be trash, etc. Making a very narrow criticism of abilities that can be removed and would hardly make a difference to the overall product, is not being negative, in my understanding.

Adding new stuff is great. It is one of the best things to do. HOWEVER.

IF adding new things means adding new things that are terrible, I don't think that's a good thing. When coming up with new stuff you should always be conscious that hey, new stuff is great, but sometimes it might not work out. And that's just the reality of it. I don't think "take cover" or the SMG "run and gun" ability, or the "fire on next turn" sniping ability with the laser are good steps. JA2, for all the limitations it had, was a very serious strategy that had only a few actions availible to you: zoom in, and fire your weapon, or move around. It doesn't need to be complex at the action or ability level.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Elite77

[Povok]

1 hour ago, Elite77 said:

Because I don't like them? Lol. No offense.

Hehe, nice point. Stating doubts and opinions doesn't make it further than personal preference. 

I personally dislike the fact that number of action points is reduced and part of the turn is "reserved" for moving around. 

What must be taken into account when sequels are created is that large part of community doesn't expect "revolutionary" changes to the game. Ya know - because we actually like previous game. That being said - 20 years is a long time and just a graphical overhaul is just not going to cut it.

[DonBilbo]

@Elite77

1. Overgeneralization: You assume that any criticism you make, as long as it is not generic, automatically qualifies as constructive criticism. However, constructive criticism involves providing specific suggestions or improvements rather than just expressing dissatisfaction.

2. Lack of evidence: You make claims about the new additions being terrible but don’t provide any concrete examples or evidence to support your opinion. This weakens your argument and leaves it open to interpretation.

3. Subjective judgment: Your opinion on what constitutes a "good step" is based on your personal preference and subjective assessment. While you are entitled to your opinion, it weakens your argument when you don't provide objective criteria or explain how these additions deviate from the desired game experience.

4. Ignoring potential complexity: You suggest that the new abilities in JA3, such as "take cover" or "fire on next turn," are not good steps and that the game should remain simplistic like JA2. However, they fail to acknowledge that introducing new mechanics and abilities can enhance gameplay and provide more strategic depth, appealing to a broader range of player.

Please argue sensibly, otherwise there will be no meaningful exchange. And thus also no potential constructive criticism.

[Elite77]

1 hour ago, DonBilbo said:

@Elite77

1. Overgeneralization: You assume that any criticism you make, as long as it is not generic, automatically qualifies as constructive criticism. However, constructive criticism involves providing specific suggestions or improvements rather than just expressing dissatisfaction.

2. Lack of evidence: You make claims about the new additions being terrible but don’t provide any concrete examples or evidence to support your opinion. This weakens your argument and leaves it open to interpretation.

3. Subjective judgment: Your opinion on what constitutes a "good step" is based on your personal preference and subjective assessment. While you are entitled to your opinion, it weakens your argument when you don't provide objective criteria or explain how these additions deviate from the desired game experience.

4. Ignoring potential complexity: You suggest that the new abilities in JA3, such as "take cover" or "fire on next turn," are not good steps and that the game should remain simplistic like JA2. However, they fail to acknowledge that introducing new mechanics and abilities can enhance gameplay and provide more strategic depth, appealing to a broader range of player.

Please argue sensibly, otherwise there will be no meaningful exchange. And thus also no potential constructive criticism.

1 I mean, specific criticisms definitely are closer to constructive criticism (whatever that word means, by the way the term is kind of vague, something I'm sure you'll make use of), than not. It doesn't make it constructive criticism just by itself, but constructive criticism is far more likely to be specific and vice versa. Also what I said wasn't overgeneralization, overgeneralization would be me using something that is small in a small % of the population, to generalize to the whole population. Overgeneralization criticism fits far more with you saying that my observations are subjective.

2 Huh? Evidence? This ain't Physics or a hard science. What "evidence". Where would we find this "evidence". How do we measure it. How do we know what is a isn't a good design choice. There's no way. You gotta relax with your "oh no evidence" claim, that doesn't invalidate the position I'm proposing and it's inappropriate because I can claim "no evidence" on any support or criticism of any design choice the devs made that you or somebody else agrees or disagrees with.

3 Same story, 1 it's not subjective because I'm actually analyzing what is and isn't a good feature, and am explaining my reasoning as I go, 2 calling something subjective doesn't mean it's not accurate. I saw a car on the road. Me seeing it was subjective, because it was based on my senses. Just because it's subjective does that mean there was no car?

Also it's not subjective because I'm correct. Sorry.

4 "JA2 simplistic" lmao ok buddy, why don't you go take a walk and let the adults discuss what's what, ok? 🤣

Quote

Please argue sensibly, otherwise there will be no meaningful exchange.

I have. You haven't, you just got scared and claimed I said things without evidence and that what I said was subjective. Interesting observation: you never claimed anything I said was incorrect.

Something somebody like you should be reminded of. 😉

TL;DR, I'm right, you're wrong, go cry. Take cover, run and gun, other abilities don't make JA3 more complex, they make it more stupid. The animation for run and gun (SMG ability) is goofy and looks weird, and it just doesn't fit in a very serious strategy like JA2 or JA3 is supposed to be, where you don't really have access to action movie abilities. The sniper ability for next turn, as far as I understand, guarantees a 100% hit? And I don't think that makes sense. It's a bit too arcade-y, like something out of Fortnite. Take cover is the most realistic of these abilities, but still, because it's the only ability that isn't like "use an item", I think it can also go to avoid the entire CRPG-ification of JA3, which is precisely what I'm talking about.

There are a 100 different ways to make JA more complex, but this ain't it chief. Adding abilities that function like "spells" to your task bar ain't it. This isn't WOW.

Edited May 29, 2023 by Elite77

[DonBilbo]

I'm beginning to understand why the developers rarely show up here and interact relatively little with the community. From what I've read here lately, I can only shake my head.
It's really sad. Instead of trying to exchange ideas in a civilised manner and possibly enter into a dialogue with the developers, the low-level internet discussion culture is once again very much in evidence here. I had hoped/expected to find a different discussion culture in a somewhat smaller community of a rather demanding game.

The sad thing is that it is a few very active members who make the forum largely worthless.

[Elite77]

1 hour ago, DonBilbo said:

The sad thing is that it is a few very active members who make the forum largely worthless.

Like you.

🤣

[Xeth Nyrrow]

8 hours ago, DonBilbo said:

I'm beginning to understand why the developers rarely show up here and interact relatively little with the community. From what I've read here lately, I can only shake my head.
It's really sad. Instead of trying to exchange ideas in a civilised manner and possibly enter into a dialogue with the developers, the low-level internet discussion culture is once again very much in evidence here. I had hoped/expected to find a different discussion culture in a somewhat smaller community of a rather demanding game.

The sad thing is that it is a few very active members who make the forum largely worthless.

You do realize that it's mostly this one person who keeps getting banned and making alts, right? Though I don't think they are the sole reason for lack of dev interaction, I'm sure it hinders it. Also the dev team is quite large for an, "indie" team and the larger the dev team, the less interactive they tend to be. However they are doing very well to communicate things with many dev diaries and streams which is easier to reach a larger audience with.

[Elite77]

5 hours ago, Xeth Nyrrow said:

You do realize that it's mostly this one person who keeps getting banned and making alts, right? Though I don't think they are the sole reason for lack of dev interaction, I'm sure it hinders it. Also the dev team is quite large for an, "indie" team and the larger the dev team, the less interactive they tend to be. However they are doing very well to communicate things with many dev diaries and streams which is easier to reach a larger audience with.

If you're talking about me this is not a sock account.

I saw similar accusations on steam, are you guys doing alright? Not everybody who disagrees with you is a sock you know.

[Jaywalker]

20 minutes ago, Elite77 said:

Not everybody who disagrees with you is a sock you know.

Curious you'd say that, after accusing everyone of being sock-puppets not more than a few days ago.

[Elite77]

5 minutes ago, Jaywalker said:

Curious you'd say that, after accusing everyone of being sock-puppets not more than a few days ago.

I didn't. Pardon my suspicion, but it is interesting how you went after a tiny little comment to you, that you didn't reply to.

Edited May 30, 2023 by Elite77

[DonBilbo]

23 hours ago, Elite77 said:

Like you.

🤣

Thank you for confirming my point. However, I would have preferred a reasonable exchange rather than personal attacks just because you can't provide arguments/reasons.
I will now put you on the ignore list. I bet you will still respond to this with a snide comment. I won't be able to read it though. You'll probably do it anyway.

[DougS2K]

I selected all that apply for me but the two options in the continued part should be ignored in general as it forces you to pick one or the other even if you don't want to select either of them.

[ShadowMagic]

Almost checked them all 😞 

I expected JA3 becoming nothing more than an Isometric - straight to the point rework of JA2 with a new storyline, but the more I get to read and see (especially the awful art style, 3rd person / zoom view and unrecognizable characters) the less enthousiastic I get.

 

Perhaps time to move on and stop spilling my salt here :D 

[Stuurminator]

10 minutes ago, ShadowMagic said:

I expected JA3 becoming nothing more than an Isometric - straight to the point rework of JA2 with a new storyline, but the more I get to read and see (especially the awful art style, 3rd person / zoom view and unrecognizable characters) the less enthousiastic I get.

Evolve or die, as they say. Jagged Alliance 2 wasn't a straight rework of Jagged Alliance 1, and they were four years apart. It's been six times that gap since Jagged Alliance 3 came out.

You have to experiment to improve, and not all experiments are successful. I know I won't like everything in JA3, but I'll approach it with an open mind.