If true, that's just sad, and after reading the latest recitation/news on the 2019 Roadmap, it does seem the NWI have curiously lost touch with what defines tactical realism (or the current incarnation of NWI never understood it in the first place): ergo a game where unrealistic tactics can not and do not prevail -- which is sad.
Sadder still is they imagine rather then trying to pursue and refine a core competence that put them on the map, they want to chase a saturated action realism market that is burning out as far as real revenue potential.
Saddest of all you can see how this is going over in the play-share statistics.
I like NWI, they're obviously a talented hard-working team, and their game's are a conspicuous labor of love with enormous attention to detail. Unfortunately Insurgency Sandstorm harks to an analogy of a gear pair of precision gears engineered and machined to amazing tolerances, with brilliant attention given to weight and strength where they set a high water-mark, unfortunately half a dozen teeth are missing on one of the gears, and someone in a decision making role thinks 'everything is fine'...
The biggest disappointment is how the coop game gets played by most players. Irrespective of the 'Default' or new 'HARDCORE' mode; it's all down to the limitations of objective and scoring design which totally obviates emergent and tactical depth of play -- and has absolutely nothing to do with movement speed or weapon metrics. You can toy with the latter relentlessly and set them anywhere within reason and a games objective and scoring design will always trump or obviate them; a game that has tactical depth will not be fundamentally altered, a game like Sandstorm will remain, as it has -- flat, simplistic, two dimensional...
This is especially apparent and easy to see on a map like Outskirts, which is BRILLIANT level design, where unfortunately the tiny simplistic capture objectives end up being simple, neck-down, score whoring 'B-Line' races from objective to objective, and objectives are played like 300 clowns in a phone booth -- just like other arcade shooters.
All the brilliant level design, maneuver fire and cover positions this map offers, to and around objectives are completely lost to everyone; completely obviated, and unplayed by most of the players most of the time (easily over 99%) because of the shitty scoring and objective system -- it's a sad lot of work and potential wasted.
Emergent game-play is a very significant element in creating games that are compelling and replayable, where players individually and as a team can discover novel, sometimes better (sometimes not), easier to coordinate approaches to solving a problem and can keep a game new for a very long time.
Tremendous tactical depth would be restored if the various roles or classes were incentivized to operate in the larger theater of the map (were rewarded and not punished for it) and more emergent and realistic group tactics would inevitably prevail over simplistic 'B-Line' fast 'Default' or slow-motion 'HARDCORE' rushes, to the clown mosh pit objectives. As things are now, classes are little more then an aesthetic affectation.
Insurgency Sandstorm certainly doesn't suffer for the lack of brilliant level design that could support this, but the coop objective and score system design is anathema to teamwork, realism, and most importantly, fun...
The new 'HARDCORE' mode does nothing to solve these problems, and is more 'HARDCORE ARCADE ACTION PORN' then realism here. Design decisions like this supports what others have said here on the forums in other threads; that NWI is more interested trying to goat rope more of the action/arcade fantasy realism audience, then support the audience that has always loved and bought their games -- but that doesn't seem to be working for them very well...
Listening to the tiny audience that still plays the game and is focused on vertical 'pet wish' features that offer no benefits that will attract players that bought the game back will never work. Neither will it attract the audience interested in more serious tactical realism; they have better alternatives that don't include wrestling with what isn't here because it isn't even a part of the design narrative.
The COOP objective and score system design doesn't require expense or genius in terms of the work involved to turn things around radically; not even a tiny fraction of what the Level Designer(s) already have in invested would raise the bar to a point where Insurgency is the high water mark again.
We have Zombie Zerg Mode, Action Arcade Speed Racer Mode, Hardcore Desert Thong Mode -- how about a REALISM mode?
Perhaps I'm reaching, but Insurgency used to have some aspirations of realism that went beyond the paint job, Foley, some weapon metrics and theme -- it was never a combat sim, but it wasn't a COD arcade shooter either... Now even the 'Hardcore Mode' is more of a conspicuous nod to Call Of Doo Dee's arcade challenge affectation then anything remotely realistic, to wit:
slow motion swimming like a geriatric heart patient with knee braces and rifles in an absurd single handed port arms carry may be 'HARDCORE' it is NOT realistic, adds no depth to the game and solves none of the game's COOP problems
magic rewards for being the first to race to an ammo dump 'in slow motion' may be 'HARDCORE' it is not remotely realistic
rewards for poorly coordinated squad maneuver that include blocking team killing may be 'HARDCORE' -- try and pull this crap in any professional military and you're out or in prison -- if you're lucky
absurd objectives like a walking bridge, while arguably realistic in terms of the sort of horribly ridiculous shit that has been tasked real modern combat, isn't very aspirational or realistic in terms of anything objective
damage models changed to suit an aesthetic preference may be 'HARDCORE' are NOT specifically or generally more realistic then the default
a score system that rewards camping inside some absurdly small perimeter may be 'HARDCORE' it's not only NOT realistic it doesn't reflect anything in real world combat
The list could be a lot longer but these are some of the need brain bleach eye sores none of which is any more realistic then would be wearing a speedo and dress shoes, at this rate that could just as well become the coveted Hardcore Borat Costume to grind for...
It's not just the cartoon arcade direction the game-play has gone (with no alternative to it); what happened to all the Insurgency commands that encouraged real squad maneuver tactics like "Moving" and "Cover Me!"? I was hoping Insurgency Sandstorm would offer more along this line to inform and incentivize teamwork, not less then the previous game...
Considering less than 20% of the people that bought the game, are playing the game; it would seem a reasonable assumption to look at the context of Insurgency Sandstorm's progenitor's success, and what got it there, and it wasn't that it had more aesthetic realism then the alternatives -- it was that it was MOTR, wasn't a speed-spam-zerg shooter, had realistic combat tempo, and on higher difficulty more realistic tactics prevailed.
I don't think players like me hate Insurgency Sandstorm, but we sure could like it a lot more...
When i say the majority of us, i'm referring to the people who play the game. How dense can you be?
Obviously being outdone by you in that regard -- you've clearly, completely and empirically missed the point that the vast majority of the people that bought the game aren't even playing the game.
That's a decisive vote with people's time as far as your assumption that 'everything is fine, people that want something else should just go to another server'... Well we have -- only it's obviously not running Insurgency Sandstorm...
As well the troll off assumption that 'go play on another server' can't even work as there aren't enough people with any remaining interest, and then a few people like you show up, and that's the end of it...
You should at least make a little mental effort to read what you're responding to... Good luck, have fun these aren't the droids you're looking for, you obviously have what you want and thanks for the bump!
If you want a more realistic and slower paced milsim experience play on a milsim community server.
That does not work, speed Queens show up and trash the game more often then not.
People on public servers will play at their own pace and leasure, with the majority of us wanting to level as fast as possible which means completing as many games per hour successfully while eliminating as many hostiles and objectives as possible.
"The majority of us" is very questionable at best, out right doubtful if you look at the facts honestly: the "majority" of would be fans; people that bought the game, bought the previous game, and/or tried the game -- are not playing the game.
As anyone with any level of intellectual honesty can see, the Steam statistics are abysmal, and not improving. The reasons frequently cited by would be fans of the game (again people that bought the game and aren't playing it, bought the previous game, and/or people that tried the game and did not like it) are consistent with the topic and premise of the thread.
It's Insurgency, not Arma.
No one here but you said, suggested or implied it was, or should be -- that assumption is all yours and not even remotely in line with the topic or direction of discussion or what anyone has said, suggested or implied in the thread.
A far stronger case can be made for what the majority of would be fans want and reason aren't playing is they do not want another Counter-Strike, do not want another Call of Doodie, summarily another action realism game that might as well be zombies vs magic robots with a realism paint job and don't care at all about or want RPG grind to dress a combat Barbie.
Even in the mod and the standalone title Insurgency you had the disparity of the slow pokes vs the speedy gonzales hot shots like myself. The solution has always been the same, find a server with the people who are akin to playing how you want to play, don't try and whine and have a core aspect of the game fundamentally changed because you're a slow poke who wants to complete 1 map per every hour.
The thread isn't about speed, or slow vs fast players; it's about speed and score whoring at the expense of depth of game play. More specifically it's about how the score system steers the direction and goals of tactical game-play, and in this case obviates it.
It's been clearly acknowledged here that there are gamers like you that don't care about realism other then the paint job, don't mind or even want an arcade speed-spam zombie hoard shooter and that's fine, you have what want, go play it, have fun -- these aren't the droids your looking for, move along.
There are others, me among them, looking for something a little deeper, above the neck, and more challenging --clearly the kind of game modes, and score system we're looking for wouldn't appeal to you, the thread and ideas here aren't for you, it's for the 'would be' fans of Insurgency Sandstorm...
The Outskirts map is one of the best coop maps to come out of NWI imho, perhaps in FPS realism coop design; it's aesthetically impressive, large enough in scale player can actually flank, but no so large there are endless flanking maneuvers, the AI placement is realistic and doesn't give the impression of a hoard of Zombies attacking, and on high difficulty the tempo is quite realistic.
But the coop scoring system remains a neck down nod to arcade games that mars gameplay, turning "coop" into 'race your team to score', and hurry up and puppy pile on tiny objectives and score -- which is sad...
As per my original post, i use DDU when uninstalling
I didnt go back as far as 19.3.3, but will try that later tonight uk time and advise of the result!
I did try 19.4.2 and it fell flat on its face
19.3.3 ; 10 seconds into benchmark, and crash.
Well thanks you for doing the heavy lifting and the update! I guess we're back to square zed... I recall running across an AMD, or maybe it was UE telemetry & diagnostics Developer application for analyzing render budgets and trouble-shooting this kind of thing but -- I lost track of it...
Just me crap guessing but perhaps this might be something to do with the streaming texture pool size issue that has been a problem for a lot of UE games, but that usually doesn't result in kind of immediate application hangs I've been seeing, you usually see some manner of stuttering or video corruption first.
Until Saber Interactive or AMD get on this, all we can do is hack away: try different drivers, turning various render settings off or all the way down with each renderer backplane (Vulcan & DX11) to see if the game will grind through the benchmark without throwing a fit. Sadly that's more trial and error then I have time for right now.
The best course here if anyone is going down this road is to isolate the issue by going at it one graphics setting at a time, you really only need to try the minimum setting to see if it effects game stability as mid-range settings may not demonstrated a decisive effect or may interact too much with other settings...
Ok, I think the driver we want is:
You can see the entire back catalog of Radeon drivers here complete with release notes, to get a chronological sense of the updates.
AMD drivers are pretty well behaved at cleaning up after themselves, but this hasn't always been the case, and with some of the new Windows updates this may be a problem again so you many want to use a tool like Wagnard Soft's Display Driver Uninstaller (guide here) or manually check your registry and user directory structure if you have any problems.
I'm not going to have time to test any of this till next week, so if you do, and make any progress -- I know I and I'm sure others would appreciate a report on any progress or lack there of in going to older depreciated drivers!
Have tried that as per my post and still the game hangs, fails, and crashes....
As per amd release notes on last 2 drivers....
World War Z may experience an application hang after extended periods of play.
I believe if it was only tied to Vulkan, they would specify that as a workaround, or am i assuming too much?
Uggh, didn't see that in the driver notes; so we really can't blame Saber Interactive for this... Do you know exactly the driver version that is supposed to work? The Vulcan renderer's performance on my slower AMD system is stunningly fast, much smoother, and the game looks conspicuously better rendered with Vulcan, but the game won't run long for me at all on either my Radeon 64 or VII system before it hangs.
This is too bad and probably due to AMD tweaking things for some other game they wanted to support, but if we know the last driver that worked correctly for WW Z we should have a good fix/work-around till AMD gets it together -- this sort of thing is very difficult if not impossible for a game developer to address...
I have the same issue running the game on a Radeon 64 and Radeon VII, but if you change the renderer to DirectX 11 in the game's settings, the game runs fine. Note to larsson: you do have to restart the game when changing renderer.
It's disappointing that WW Z doesn't run properly under Vulcan as the frame rates are much higher and smother, though if you run the game for a while on DirectX 11 they do smooth out a little.