Frustrating by design?

I have 40 hours in Sandstorm now, and 639 hours INS:2. After I play Sandstorm I'm usually in a bad mood and I'm starting to wonder if the game shot itself in the knee and is - based on the available maps and mechanics - "frustrating by design" now? I only play skirmish currently and I always tried to blow up caches and had a lot of fun with that in the old game. The lanes in the old maps were designed so that you usually had to push through a lot of enemies till you got to the cache. There was often some kind of defense for it, even if the team didn't have any dedicated people to defend it. Now on some maps you can run to the fuel truck without even meeting anyone most of the time, because the maps are so huge. Flanking used to be a thrilling high risk move, and now it's much less interesting because the teams are so spread out over the maps. And on crossing, the damn trucks are placed in plain sight just waiting for a single RPG shot from next to C to take it out. That isn't fun, a moment of interesting challenge was removed and replaced with something that feels like pure cheesing.

The RPGs used to be high-risk-high-reward weapons that are inaccurate as fuck (I often couldn't even reliably fire them through a doorway or window at a distance), but if they hit, they cleared the fucking room like a boss. Now that we have all that helicopter crap they need to be laser-precise to give a fair chance of hitting the damn things and because they are so precise they also are perfect for blowing up trucks (boooring) and got nerfed hard against infantry. Another high-risk-high reward strategy becomes less interesting.

Then all the fire-support stuff. These are fun for 1 person at most, and even if I was the commander I'd feel bad calling in "easy kill support" because there is no challenge and no reason to feel good about yourself for using it. The team that caps the empty objective will feel bored because there's not much to shoot left, and all the people that died by the fire support will be super pissed too. For a rifle kill at least one player gets to have some fun at the expense of someone else being pissed off. I feel like the "net fun to be had in the game" was severely reduced. I'd limit them to smoke artillery only. The only thing the other stuff adds to the game are explosions to be shown in trailers and I feel like that was the main reason to add them in the first place...

I'm guessing microtransactions were mandated by the publisher, now all that cosmetic shit won't go anywhere ever, and the new meta is conceiling yourself in the environment buy using stuff that camouflages you, as if the lighting and cluttered visuals in the game weren't making it hard enough to spot people already. I have been shot numerous times by people that I have looked straight at and decided "that's some piece of rubble and belongs to the map" and boom, a muzzleflash appears and I'm dead. I'm using some kind of desert camo too and my K/D as security on the stats screen is much better than the one for playing Insurgents. And that's despite me always having preferred the AKM as a weapon in INS2...
The maps feel like zero effort has been put into blocking off points that are overpowered exploits for camping in super hard to see spots.

Overall the maps all feel way too "open and hard to conceptualize". It's mostly a clusterfuck of different buildings, often separated by too wide and open areas that invite the conceal-and-camp strategy. I miss the chokepoints that concentrated action. I feel like the percentage of duels compared to group engagements has been shifted a lot towards more 1v1 engagements happening. And because everything is so far apart it's soooo boring to run anywhere. Compared to the old game I feel like I'm spending much more time doing boring stuff and getting shot from behind, compared to being right in the action and winning/losing engagements. When you get shot from behind, it wasn't even a fight from your perspective. In the old game most of the time when I got shot I thought "ok, that guy was quicker or better", because the visuals were clearer and there were much clearer ways from where enemies could come (think of e.g. Ministry), here I feel like the map design is fucking you left and right...

Regarding aim, I can't put my finger on the reasons but it feels much harder to aim to me. Not the recoil, just aiming that first shot. I have mouse smoothing off, vsync off, fps usually higher than my monitor can handle, still feels like there is some kind of lag in the mouse movement. Does anyone else feel that way? The pro players maybe? I'm making so many hipfire kills like in almost no other FPS, something about that feels wrong. Overall shooting feels less satisfying to me in Sandstorm than in INS2.

My bottom-line thought for Sandstorm is "where has all the fun gone?". Because even if I have a good round with high KD, most kills, most objectives and top of the scoreboard, I feel like I've had less fun than in some INS2 matches that I lost.

I like the doors though... the doors are fun!

Look, if you love the game, more power to you! I wish I'd be happy with this game more than you can imagine, because all the other multiplayer shooters are unappealing to me. But right now the game feels so fundamentally flawed to me in ways that I don't expect to ever get fixed, because they are core design choices that you maybe can't even undo in a matter of a few months.

What I would like to hear is the point of view of someone who loved INS2 and thinks they are having even more fun in Sandstorm, and explain to me why exactly - what do you find more fun in Sandstorm? I'm sure there is someone, riiight? I feel like I don't "get" this game if you know what I mean, and it is frustrating.

I plan to play some more of the old INS2 till the next Sandstorm patch hits, to make sure I'm not just wearing rose-tinted-nostalgia-goggles in regards to INS2, but I doubt it. I would never play over 600 hours of a game that I don't absolutely love and I just don't see myself playing anywhere close to that amount of Sandstorm.

(if possible no TTK discussion please, I've left it out of my list because it has been done to death)

last edited by GrotesqueShadow

Hi @GrotesqueShadow ,

You make some valid points their however Ill put it straight out their that Im a huge fan of the way it is but ill make some points here and please dont feel I devalue your opinion I'm just sharing mine.

Caches - Yes I tend to agree indeed they are bloody easy to kill and I have spent entire games just defending them by myself because everyone else runs off without a care in the world. Personally I dont think its an issue in the RPG more about placement of the fuel trucks themselves. In real life you wouldn't park your assets in open spaces much less undefended.

RPG's- I think the RPGs are ok and yes the accuracy is somewhat attributed to the choppers however Ive also seen teams taks shot after shot and totally miss until it leaves. I think you right though the old style where they kinda flailed around a bit was much more realistic and satisfying. I also believe they should have a backblast, This would probably reduce that whip it out and fire mentality because standing with it next a wall wont be practical.

Fire Support- This is a definite big plus feature for me. Teams that can incorporate this and communicate effectively will always have the advantage. Unfortunately I sit and basically talk to myself most games because no one communicates anything. This is also a big reason that you will get flanked so often, no one calls, no communication in general. Fire Support gives it a real chaos feeling in mass battles in particular, the immersion level is off the charts.

Large Maps- Just to point out here that insurgency has always been about open warfare but also about teamwork. The team that communicates best always wins, its a fact. Insurgency has really gone out of the box here and made maps with many corners and many angles. The point to this is you cant just go and learn the maps and look like your a god because it aint gonna work. This is also limiting the camping because most positions can be assaulted form multiple directions.

Aiming - Yes I do indeed agree sometimes Ill be the first to shoot and while my aim may drift, technically I should have the kill but I don find myself getting 1 tapped within half a second of being spotted. My reflexes aren't what they used to be but my situational awareness is probably better than its ever been so in most situations I set myself up in a tactical positions that I can maneuver in but get 1 tapped a lot more than what I really should, I see it when spec'ing alot too.

In Brief I know it has its flaws (the devs are amazing and the listen to everything that's said) but feel this is a much better format for the modern FPS community and is unique in its own right. It allows the flexibility of being the rambo or being the team. The shift I have seen over the years is away from teams to everyone wants to be their own hero and an introverted one at that. As I said I communicate a lot but thats just me I like the team play element.

I did servers for INS 2 and it has been one of my favourite servers to run and Im really looking forward to do doing it again and the progress that will come in the coming months in the evolution of the game.

-webbie

I agree to an extent. While I’m having fun playing Sandstorm, I do think it feels different from last Insrugency and can be quite frustrating fue to the map design.

I think that maps are more open and feel more real than in Insurgency, but I’m enjoying Skirmish and Firefights modes more than Push, because of the time I spend running (objectives being generally 200m away), just to miresarably die from a sniper’s shot, wait more than 30 seconds to respawn aaaand... the game ends.

I used, and use, to play a lot to Red Orchestra (and now to Rising Storm 2), where the maps’ size and tools like artillery support actually make sense, because of the concept of “simulating” battlefields between 32 players teams, the players being more meat than soldiers. Generally, I played RO/RS2 when I felt like being involved in a battle, and Insurgency when I felt like being involved in short skirmishes, with quickier action. Which is not anymore the case for the new face of Sandsorm.

I’m not against bigger maps, agree that more variety would be better, that is, bigger maps but also maps with a similar design than last Insurgency, more intense, without the necessity to run and run to get into the action.

Hi @webbie and thanks for replying! Good to see even someone who likes the game can agree on some of what I wrote.

@webbie said in Frustrating by design?:

Personally I dont think its an issue in the RPG more about placement of the fuel trucks themselves. In real life you wouldn't park your assets in open spaces much less undefended.

Agreed. The RPG was more an example of how one decision has a couple of knock on effects that make two entirely different things feel worse.

@webbie said in Frustrating by design?:

The team that communicates best always wins, its a fact. Insurgency has really gone out of the box here and made maps with many corners and many angles. The point to this is you cant just go and learn the maps and look like your a god because it aint gonna work.

The problem that I see with that is that INS2 never had strong teamplay on EU servers and Sandstorm doesn't do nearly enough to funnel people towards teamplay. I have no recommendations to fix it either, I'm often a lone roamer myself. Maybe some kind of improved tagging/callout system could help that awards points for informing your teammates and awards you a sizable chunk of the kill score if a teammate kills your marked target (maybe 100% even to maximally incentivize because a good callout is usually more worth than a missed shot?)?

I just played a round of INS2 skirmish on Panj. I chose Panj because I hate it, didn't want to skew the test by picking my favorite map. Shortly after I joined my team lost the second round in a row - 0:2. The next round I got teamkilled very intentionally (dude fired half a mag at me at close range shortly after round start, absolutely no way that was an accident), but I managed to blow the enemies cache and we won - 1:2. The team felt like there is a chance for a comeback and some people even used the chat to try and coordinate what objectives to take. I'm not sure I have ever seen that happen in Sandstorm. I'm sure it did happen but the chat window is kind of hard to read with the much smaller font and top corner placement and I often overlook that messages are even written there. We managed to win that round as well - 2:2. I got sniped a TON, my K/D ratio at the end of the round was faaar below 1, but I never felt as long out of action as I do in Sandstorm. You respawn quickly, and the action starts the moment you step out the door of the spawn area. I felt much more compelled to use smokes, crawl along in the trenches, won a couple of engagements, lost a couple of engagements, but I never raged at the game because it all felt fair and unambiguous. When I died from a sniper it means I have gambled and lost or not used enough smoke. When I die from an enemy that I could see, it means they were faster than me, fair enough. When I had someone in my sights I could easily drop them. Never did that feel like the game is getting in the way and I need to call bullshit on what just happened, which is a frequent occurance in Sandstorm. In the end we won 3:2 rounds, on a map that I absolutely hate, with a terrible K/D that usually bothers me a lot, but I had so much more fun than in a Sandstorm skirmish, it's a night and day difference. In INS2 I feel like everything that I do matters more. People are more inclined to go for objectives, because they are not a 2 minute hike away and you can just rather quickly run over from where you are. I believe the higher round count (best of 5) combined with not switching sides (assuming they'd be more balanced than they are right now in Sandstorm) allows everybody in the game to get more invested. A comeback is always possible, no unsatisfying ties, no getting confused whom to shoot because it switches every round (always takes me a moment to get used to whom I need to shoot, I think the frequent switches are a very bad choice, and also masks on maps which side statistically has an advantage), people get to know each other a tiny bit more, even if just by observing whom they can count on going for objectives (even better when you stay on one server and play a few rounds with the same people), and there is a much greater sense of a "shared victory/loss". I'm overall so much more engaged in INS2, there has to be something wrong with Sandstorm in the way it sets up the gameplay/teamplay environment...

@cachetito302 said in Frustrating by design?:

I used, and use, to play a lot to Red Orchestra (and now to Rising Storm 2), where the maps’ size and tools like artillery support actually make sense, because of the concept of “simulating” battlefields between 32 players teams, the players being more meat than soldiers. Generally, I played RO/RS2 when I felt like being involved in a battle, and Insurgency when I felt like being involved in short skirmishes, with quickier action.

I wouldn't be surprised if they really wanted to get 32 vs 32 matches going in Sandstorm and laid out the maps to make that at least theoretically possible, but couldn't make it work for one reason or another, but still kept the huge maps. I think that was a mistake. The overall density of people and action on Panj (which I would still consider a big map and which I don't like at all) felt at least twice as dense compared to Sandstorm. It seems to me that about 50/50 I'm alone on an objective in Sandstorm vs having teammates present, and in INS2 most of the time you have other teammates on the same objective too. And the long walk routes in Sandstorm play their part in it I'm sure. If I see an objective being taken that is 200 m away, I know there is no way for me to get there in time, so why bother at all? Maybe the capture timers need to be increased?

last edited by GrotesqueShadow

@grotesqueshadow These are all great points that you make so I'm not going to quote the whole thing. I actually like the map designs of sandstorm. They allow for a wide variety of play styles, but at the end of the day, they are generally too big for the amount of players in a game which ends up leaving them feeling pretty sparse except around active objectives.

As far as teamplay and communication, it's virtually non-existent in sandstorm. I think this may be due in large part to the fact that you can't even see who's talking. When someone makes a callout, it's impossible to tell who did and where they did. There needs to be some obvious on-screen indicator for when people are talking, like maybe their name pops up in the corner and a mic appears over their head, or a directional arrow appears so that you can get a sense of their location as well.

Also I would like to see some sort of squad system in this game like there was in insurgency. Perhaps every squad would have a squad leader who's job it is to call in reinforcements, i.e. respawn his squad. This would give a sense of unity to the squads as they always respawn together and gives the players the power to decide how their waves are spent instead of it being entirely up to the game.

@qarisma said in Frustrating by design?:

Also I would like to see some sort of squad system in this game like there was in insurgency. Perhaps every squad would have a squad leader who's job it is to call in reinforcements, i.e. respawn his squad. This would give a sense of unity to the squads as they always respawn together and gives the players the power to decide how their waves are spent instead of it being entirely up to the game.

That way you would put even more of the fun of the whole squad into the hands of one person that may be totally unqualified to handle it, just like commanders and observers get yelled at all the time, that person too would get yelled at all the time. If they do their job poorly the whole squad suffers, and even if they do it right there's always someone who disagrees. I think that's the wrong way to go about it. And I doubt the old squad divisions are coming back because it doesn't fit well with the new class selection UI.

What I wouldn't mind is different spawn locations and the dead teammates get to vote on where to spawn next during their spectator time. Maybe that would get them to talk to each other to get some consensus for what strategy to use? And it would make it less predictable for when and where waves appear in regards to spawn camping and fuel truck attacks. Maybe there could be a differentiation between "victory objectives" and "spawn objectives" that grant spawns in forward locations but don't count towards the objectves that win the match? So it would be a tactical choice whether to go after a forward spawn point at the cost of manpower for capturing or holding the existing objectives.

Regarding teamwork, we wont find the masses running to work together. It has been tried again and again but never happens!

We still dont have a server browser and dedicated or rented servers yet, which is where I think the teamwork will happen and these ideas can be tried out. Personally I am happy to slug it out in chaotic teams (or organised chaos?) in the versus mode for the moment and wait for good teamwork servers to appear.

However I have seen many of the same players appearing and with a good attitude and some tit for tat here and there micro teamwork as I call it has been happening. Without sounding too much like an ideologist I guess the teamwork is up to the players that care the most and have the highest tolerance!

@haggison
Yeah, the teamwork isn't even close to my biggest concern, it's just one of the many things that I see that INS2 does better imho.

I've just played another round INS2 with a friend and it blows Sandstorm out of the water in so many ways, it's crazy. Granted, doors are better in Sandstorm (not just the various mechanics, just running through them without getting stuck is already easier than in INS2), and the loadout menu is better with its presets, but in terms of fun and excitement INS2 is still leaps and bounds ahead. Gamedesign is hard, you can't take something like that and "just make it better", every tiny change can break it. I think they changed too much at once, trusting that it'd work, without confirming that it does. Either that or they have such a vastly different vision for Sandstorm that it will never be my cup of tea. We'll go back to INS2 and take another look at Sandstorm with each patch to see how it's changing. But I'll be honest, if till release this doesn't look like it's getting turned around big time, then I'll probably refund it because otherwise I'd only forever be annoyed by the game for abandoning its old strengths. If the devs have a different vision for it, then fair enough, their choice. I don't want anything so different, because INS2 is the only multiplayer shooter that I can enjoy and it pretty much ruined all the other shooters for me. I hope the new one will sell well either way and I still have nothing but love for NWI, but Sandstorm (so far) is not living up to the expectations that I had as a huge fan of INS2. And it doesn't really feel like those are issues cause by its rough beta state, it feels more like they have changed their design goals and I'm no longer on board with the new ones.

@grotesqueshadow

I would try the other game modes where that first Insurgency feel is more present. Even in Push you can work around, sometimes, wide open flanks but ultimately all flanks lead to a single destination. I think skirmish has a place, maybe in a larger competitive scene where small groups are more coordinated. Possibly a larger player count on custom servers. The fuel trucks are not main objective now and are, if anything, simply bait to reveal am enemy position or waste ordinance.

In Push the commander definitely matters. Well placed calls or lack there of can make or break the match. If the commander is asking himself “how many kills did my artillery get?” over “how did my artillery influence the team?” then it can feel useless. In my opinion, ordinace and communication spur the team to push objective. Meaning a well placed RPG on infantry may cost you the ground a attack chopper takes back. The balance of the RPG and air support feels much better in the push Mode. Even on the flip side in relation to a well positioned truck.

My frustration comes from lack of Objective priority and it seems partially you too perhaps. Vote to Kick will fix this. It did in the last Insurgency and in Red Orchestra.

@grotesqueshadow said in Frustrating by design?:

And it doesn't really feel like those are issues cause by its rough beta state, it feels more like they have changed their design goals...

They probably have changed those goals. There are different elements in Sandstorm that indicate that ie. fire support & bigger maps.

I personally hope that Sandstorm would have 32v32 in push. Bigger and more open maps would suit that. More actionc & fighting vs. so much running around the map. I understand that maps feel empty if there are not enough players, on the otherhand I can see so much potential for immersive firefights on these new maps.

What I would like to hear is the point of view of someone who loved INS2 and thinks they are having even more fun in Sandstorm, and explain to me why exactly - what do you find more fun in Sandstorm? I'm sure there is someone, riiight? I feel like I don't "get" this game if you know what I mean, and it is frustrating.

I really liked INS2 for it's quick action but still being more of a tactical game. I've played Arma and Squad, and those are too slow tempo for my taste 🙂 BF feels too arcade for my taste. For me personally, Sandstorm looks like the potential candidate to fill that middle ground: faster than Arma or Squad but still tactical feel in it, but bigger firefights than in INS2 on more open areas, to allow more manouvers.

I have also a huge interest for AI and bots, so I'm really hoping for fully moddable bots. Besides playing the game, I know I would spend hours on just modifying the bots in UE4 and playing around with them on my own in Sandstorm local play 😃

So Sandstorm is tickling me the right way at the moment, so to speak.

@cachetito302 said:
Generally, I played RO/RS2 when I felt like being involved in a battle, and Insurgency when I felt like being involved in short skirmishes, with quickier action. Which is not anymore the case for the new face of Sandsorm.

This, but my games for "being involved in a battle" were Arma and Squad. I feel like Sandstorm has the potential to land in between. I would personally like an option like that.

I don't know if this helped at all @GrotesqueShadow , but maybe this helps you understand better why you maybe aren't currently enjoying Sandstorm as much as you may have expected to :o Sandstorm seems to have moved on the spectrum if we consider the push gamemode.

Other game modes could use smaller map sizes for sure. I have a faint memory, that in some of the early feature lists there was this feature of making the play area somehow dynamically change with the number of players in game, or something similar. I don't know if this is still on the TODO-list or if this was discarded. Correct me if I remember wrong!

Read all the posts above and I suppose that our feeling under which Sandstorms feels different from Ins2 is due to a set of reasons:
(i) Gameplay and map design are slightly different, and the the players have to adapt, will have to learn how to improve the team play.
(ii) We also have to accept that Sandstorm is a game on its own, a new experience. Comparing every aspect of it to Ins2 is at the same time great for its development, but not as good as idea considering that we are currently looking to have the same experience as the previous game, that is, finding in Sandstorm something new but identical to Ins2...

So... Maybe time is key here. Waiting for the community to improve their skills, finding our own way to play the game and how to really appreciate it , and I trust that adding smaller maps, with a design inspired by those of Ins2 would not oly improve variety but help to let us play Sandstorm in a way close to Ins2.

For me 1 thing that is MOST important atm is adding mute option or vote kick (or both) because when another 14 yo braindead kid starts his "OOOOOOOO AAAAAAAAAAAAA BLE BLE BLE" on voice chat I want to rip his mouth off and piis inside... and I guess thats scareing away some players too... nobody wants to listen to this crap.

@haggison

Yeah, this is why I would never play a game like Sandstorm without some friends. Randoms are a complete crapshoot. Running solo may work fine in twitch shooters like CoD, etc., but a game like this is so much better with teamwork.

Hell, if you look at a game like Ghost Recon Wildlands where the developers purposely limited teams to 4v4 to try and force team play and while it helps, you still run into people with "lone wolf" attitudes. .....and most of them never even use a mic. Any PvP game where you have randoms in the mix, you are going to run into this problem. Personally, I think it's partly due to a lack of incentives to encourage team play and an unhealthy focus on individual achievement (e.g. personal scores, stats, etc.). Everyone wants to be the "MVP".

This is one reason I rarely ever play PvP games without a group of friends and Sandstorm will be no different. As you say (and I believe), the teamwork is usually up to the players that care the most. To me, it's about doing what it takes to help the team win and the overall gameplay experience. ......not individual stats, etc.

I actually like Qarisma's idea about squads but then again (as I said), I usually work with a small group of friends already so this would work well for someone like me. Who knows though...... Maybe it would help encourage people to work together in these smaller groups? Maybe it could be optional with certain advantages if you do so solos wouldn't feel committed if they didn't want to be? ....I'm just spitballin' here.

last edited by Kean_1

@typek83 can't you already mute this in the menu? I think there's a slider for that volume, but can't remember what it was called

I can understand your frustrations but I think they'll be sorted by retail release cus atm the game freezes up/stutters and hit detection is an issue with ping variation even from 40-100ms.

I hope things get fixed by release as I really like Insurgency, have done since Modern Combat; and it would be a real shame if Sandstorm failed at release by neglecting to fix the serious issues and the performance problems.

hmm I was looking for a possibility to mute a player but I guess your talking about muteing whole voice chat... I don't want to mute everyone I just want to mute the annoying guy and I didn't find any option for that.
By the way I noticed one more thing. There are situations when a player from your team is team killing you when your trying to take/destroy objective so he could do it and gain additional points... there must be a pennalty for something like that... maybe score pennalty or auto kick after some ammount of friendly fire or after some number of TKs (I think that ff dmg limit like in CS is a good idea).
P.S. Don't want to spamm so I add it here. Just reminded one more thing. When you capture objective and 99% of the time you are on it but in the last second you just step outside of the caping zone, you don't get exp and obj point at all... I think it's a bit unfair. You took whole objective, steped out just for a sec and you get nothing and a guy who just entered obj last second will get cap point...

last edited by Typek83

Thanks for creating this thread. It has interesting points and the devs SHOULD read it; the game could be massively improved, indeed!

Holy crap I agree 100% with everything you mentioned especially the part discussing the maps ("open and hard to conceptualize"). Nailed it on the head. I feel like they got some inspiration from Rising Sandstorm (Red Orchestra) but it just doesn't fit in with how Insurgency works; the mechanics that is such as commander roles and larger maps.

@jensiii yes you can mute but everyone. So you can stop playing at all or play pvp solo... Even if I mute voip theres always some retard who takes rpg at spawn and blows half of the team at the begining of the round and I'm talking about the actual match not the warmup. You can't kick this guy, all you can do is just leave the match and try another one hoping there won't be another fucktard like that. I think I'll just take a brake from this game until these things are sorted out cuz it's damn frustrating. I love the game but it's impossible to play with all those idiots joining just to ruin everyones else game.

As an older gamer I don't have too many non-bug technical issues with the game. Reading your post I'm thinking this may not be the game for you. The other game feels like a platoon level operation, where this cone feels like a company sized game where several platoons could fight against one another.

It is harder to aim. Way back in the day, as an older gamer, I used to get top frags in a number of shooters all the time, and I actually still can with a small number of them even though I've lost a step or two in terms of reflexes. But, having said that, aiming in this game is far more difficult than in any other shooter I've ever played. Part of that is that I usually play gunner because I like to hang back and give cover fire--hold down the trigger kind of thing. But even when I'm not doing the support role I find it frustrating at times that my weapon has more kick than other people in the game, or more kick than regular Insurgency.

I'll say this, I like it better than Arma or COD, and certainly better than CSGO, but it's not the best shooter I've ever played.

I think a lot of my luke warm feelings are because the maps aren't completed. Example; the Crossing map has a ton of rocks that you should be able to climb, but you can only climb a select number of them, and the geometry doesn't always coincide with where you can climb. That, and some rocks that look easy to climb up on you simply can't, but other rock formations that should be harder are easy to get on top of. I'm assuming that's a Beta issue that'll be cleared up.

I think at Sandstorm's core it's striving to be a bit more of a simulator than it's previous iteration.

last edited by Blue Ghost

Looks like your connection to Focus Home Interactive - Official Forums was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.