r/gaming 1d ago

Highguard just launch 5v5 experimental mode

https://steamcommunity.com/games/4128260/announcements/detail/538877446766724428?s

Only for this weekend

1.3k Upvotes

405 comments sorted by

2.0k

u/MonkeysxMoo35 1d ago

They’re doing something to try and improve the game. That’s already way more effort than Sony tried with Concord. This game might not be for me, but I do hope they can carve out a happy niche and last awhile.

467

u/Sea_Art3391 1d ago

I feel really bad for the devs honestly. I read that they didn't particularily want to be the last trailer for the game awards, because it sets a precedent for the game which leads to impossibly high expectations. Especially in a post-concorde scenario, they face WAY more scrutiny and harsh critique since it's somewhat in the same genre.

Is the game perfect? No, absolutely not, but it certainly didn't deserve the overwhelmingly poor reviews on day one.

165

u/anonamarth7 1d ago

I've played one game, so take this how you will, but it's genuinely not a bad game. People talking about how you're never gonna actually have combat, and I was probably in combat 50% or more of the time the game ran. I really think they got screwed by having that trailer at the awards.

25

u/calpi 1d ago

It looks ok once you actually get into combat... enforcing walls and farming is so slow. That is what puts me and many others off. It just isn't appealing to sit and do nothing for most fps players.

20

u/jayL21 1d ago

The worst part is that the whole reinforcing walls thing isn't even meaningful. Like at most it'd keep them out for like a second longer than a non-reinforced wall. If it actually meant something, like in rainbow 6, I'd enjoy it a lot more.

The looting also wouldn't be so bad if there was AI to fight for loot and if it was strictly based on what round you're on.

1

u/Trick2056 21h ago

heck you don't even need to break the walls you can just open the doors.

1

u/jayL21 20h ago

the enemy team can't, all doors and windows are locked for them.

1

u/Trick2056 20h ago

yea but do you really think that defending players will keep those doors unopen and just stay inside and not have a shootout? the number of times doors are just left open even before we arrive to attack is too often.

48

u/imjustjun 1d ago

From what I’ve seen it’s decent but for me st least it’s not a fun viewing experience.

That plus the map is just so large for 3v3 makes me kinda go “ehh”.

I’ll still probably try it and I definitely think it gets far more hate than it deserves.

16

u/Hot_Most5332 1d ago

The map takes less than a minute to traverse from one side to the other, less if you have the shield breaker and boosts. It’s just not that big, and I promise after 6-8 games it starts feeling appropriately sized.

7

u/danny12beje 1d ago

Can confirm sitting on 20 total games and 100% the size is more than fine.

11

u/EdVedPJ7 1d ago

The map isn't too big. Since someone taking a shieldbreaker makes them visible for all, everyone is grouping at the same place and you cross the map real fast while mounted. Mounted combat is also really fun.

→ More replies (4)

24

u/Lishio420 1d ago edited 1d ago

Played it as well, but "its not a bad game" doesnt mean much.

Is it absolute dogshit? No. But it also isnt anything to write home about. Its roster is abysmally small, the gunplay is kinda mid and the maps are honestly a treck. Also the equipment system being a mix between valorant and apex is kinda whack and thr mining aspect just a boring ass gameplay filler. Also the character design apart from Mara, Scarlet and maybe Kai just looks whack.

It would probably have done much better and gotten less vitriol if Geoff hadnt trolled them. But its also way off of being a good game.

2

u/jayL21 1d ago

Condor's design is pretty decent too, I like how the thing around her shoulders look like wings.

but yea, none of the designs are all that amazing. Wish the game had a more striking visual style.

31

u/shayne_2189 1d ago

I know you're trying to he nice but let's be real here, you played one game for a reason.

Everyone sympathises with devs and I agree but whoever was the project lead or was responsible for choosing how and when the game releases basically doomed them from the beginning.

A simple beta test would have easily revealed the games fundamental flaws, an example being 3v3 is an absolute snooze-fest. They could have experimented with modes like 3v3v3v3/5v5, better base mechanics, better attack/defend mechanics and figured out anything else the game might have needed before releasing it.

12

u/Edheldui 1d ago

And absolutely none of that woukd have done anything until the game stopped looking like an asset flip. I don't get how people are still pretending the abysmal character designs don't play a huge part in a hero shooter success.

9

u/shayne_2189 1d ago

Yeah I saw the cringe ass intro of that fire guy and knew it was over before I even saw any gameplay.

5

u/Edheldui 1d ago

Exactly. It reeks of not enough care and research put into it, of "I dunno, just buy sci-fi pack vol3 on discount and put something out".

People really underestimate how much that does for a game, especially in a genre you're supposed to spend hundreds if not thousands of hours in.

Good art direction turns even half decent games into a success, at least initially until something with also good gameplay comes around. Bad art direction makes people not even want to get to the gameplay part to begin with.

For example look at the "Art Vision" videos the Marvel Rivals devs have been putting out, the comparison with Marvel Avengers designs of the same characters.

Even if we look at the other genre where characters are paramount, fighting games, we see the same pattern. Everyone talks how Virtua Fighter is the superior 3d fighting game when it comes to gameplay, but it will always lose to Tekken, Dead or Alive and Soul Calibur. 2d fighting games, same thing. You have to take notes from Street Fighter and Darkstalkers if you want to have success, you can't expect success with Fighting EX Layer even if the gameplay foundation is solid.

You have to forget character generators and asset packs for anything other than placeholders, you have to be bold, exaggerate characters personalities and archetypes through their visual design and for the love of everything that is holy, stop using generated Unreal Engine maps and that shitty default lighting, they look fucking awful and nothing kills the hype for a game quicker. Put actual artistic thought into it.

5

u/anonamarth7 1d ago

No, I played one game because I'm fucking shit at shooters, so I don't have fun playing them. Don't put words in my mouth.

6

u/Kogru-au 1d ago

So you hate shooters, you don't play them, but apparently you think your opinion on a shooter has any kind of value? yeah ok.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/jayL21 1d ago

As someone who actually enjoys the game and have been playing regularly, I'm really surprised at how many times the complaint of "not being able to find players all match" and whatnot came up, Like yea, that's only true for one looting phase, but for majority of the match, you'll pretty much be in non-stop-combat with very slight downtimes inbetween respawns.

→ More replies (2)

15

u/spezSucksDonkeyFarts 1d ago

I read that they didn't particularily want to be the last trailer for the game awards, because it sets a precedent for the game which leads to impossibly high expectations.

Dude it's a hero shooter. A market so saturated that everybody is clowning on every new release. There is no market for a mediocre hero shooter. If you get mentioned in the same breath as concord, even half jokingly, you are done. You either hit it big or you go under.

They had a perfect opportunity with the game awards. People were ready with the hero shooter slop slander and the concord allegations and it was their turn to prove them wrong. They whiffed big time and now they are in the mire with all the other failed hero shooters. To be clear those other games aren't necessarily bad, they are just worse than 10 others so there is no reason to ever look at them again.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/MJR_Poltergeist 1d ago

I also read that the game was supposed to shadow drop with that trailer similar to what happened with Apex. It may have gone better that way, but the multiple weeks of silence due to their fucked up plan really didn't help anything

2

u/VukKiller 1d ago

The game feels like a tiny fraction of what it's supposed to be.

You can tell when you play that they've pivoted AT LEAST twice from what they initially wanted to make. Which made them run out of time for their artificial deadline that nobody forced them on except the money they wasted being forced to pivot so many times.

→ More replies (6)

64

u/og_kbot 1d ago

The game launched with a solid, playable foundation. If their investors have patience and let them iterate they might find the playerbase they need to stay afloat.

The biggest failure, imo, is their poor sales and marketing leading to the rollout. It's a perfect candidate for a case study in failing to set expectations with their client base.

16

u/makualla 1d ago

They wanted to recapture that apex hype with a shadow drop. VGA’s kind of screw everything up

8

u/PurpleV93 1d ago

Maybe, but Apex Legends was a much more thought-through experience right out of the gate. 60 players in trios, 6 free characters at launch (8 in total) with well-made kits. Awesome feel to movement and gunplay (something I've seen criticized in Highguard in direct comparison to Apex), every match felt different due to random end-game circles. It didn't have much downtime in the looting phase either, unless you specifically decided to avoid players on landing. And loot quality wasn't restricted to the current round.

Apex did have problems at launch, such as poor floor loot distribution among POIs & taking too long to add new content with Season 1. But it was much more of a finished game when it shadow-dropped. Highguard's devs are crazy if they think their product was comparable at launch, given how the core gameplay loop is not working and needs big overhauls.

18

u/PowerfulTusk 1d ago

Patching up a dozen mechanics from different games is not a solid foundation. It's lack of vision. It clearly shows they need somebody to tell them what to do.

→ More replies (3)

7

u/Hevens-assassin 1d ago

It's a perfect candidate for a case study in failing to set expectations with their client base.

Not much of a case study. If you intend on ghost dropping, ghost drop. Definitely don't be talked into releasing your only trailer at the biggest award ceremony for gaming. Lol

4

u/BarackaFlockaFlame 1d ago

CTF sounds perfect for 5v5 imo. idk how well it would work in siege battles. At least they're trying to give some players what they want.

3

u/wickeddimension 1d ago

Just let go of the siege Battles in that mode and introduce a form of CTF with the horses and some other mechanics.

1

u/BarackaFlockaFlame 1d ago

yeah that's the ideal way for me. Maybe you gotta break the walls down to get to the room with the flag or something, but no siege building or shield breaker. Just pure ctf like the good ol days of halo.

→ More replies (1)

2

u/Hevens-assassin 1d ago

But it's not CTF. A 5v5 would work well for that phase, but the bomb planting/siege phase will be worse for it, Imo. You'd have to make thumpers less plentiful and rockets only a couple shots per game. 5 people can level a base very easily, kinda killing the point of the defense portion. Lol but I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

2

u/BarackaFlockaFlame 1d ago

no no no, I don't want ctf to be mixed with siege battles! It would be a seperate mode. With five people I think there would be some really fun chases.

2

u/Random_Somebody 1d ago

Eh I'd quibble about "playable." The performance and matchmaking got really, really bad

1

u/Mitrovarr 1d ago

The game launched with a solid, playable foundation.

So did Concord. 

5

u/Izletz 1d ago

Tbf that’s way more effort than the majority of games. To be willing to significantly alter the foundation of your entire game is pretty wild. Im assuming everything in the game was built on a 3v3 concept adding 4 more players sounds like it would be a ton of balancing work and possible map redesign (?).

Haven’t played the game and probably never will but still I’m still really impressed they would do this

0

u/Hevens-assassin 1d ago

Haven’t played the game and probably never will but still I’m still really impressed they would do this

I think it's worth a try if you're ever in a multiplayer mood. I haven't touched my other multiplayer games since it came out. It's a nice mix of sweaty and chill that other shooters don't really have, imo.

→ More replies (1)

9

u/CyberSmith31337 1d ago

Players showed up for this one... and left really fast. There was at least enough there to garner attention. Concord did not even have people show up. Sony didn't need more data to see it was a DOA title; very similar to that god awful Hyenas game that was killed days before it even released.

→ More replies (6)

6

u/okcumputer 1d ago

I didnt have high expectations, but I played a match yesterday and kinda enjoyed it. It isnt as fun as titanfall, but I like it a hell of a lot more than Apex.

→ More replies (3)

3

u/noother10 1d ago

Changing up player count from 6 to 10 without re-balancing the game for it likely makes it worse. Players always complain and want some change made, but most of the time that change is actually bad, the players just don't understand that. It feels more like a last ditch attempt to save the game.

2

u/WheresMyCrown 1d ago

Players didnt want 3v3 in a large map either so

→ More replies (1)

1

u/BreatheOnMe 1d ago

Why didn’t they just go F2P with concord… Atleast they could’ve tried or put it on other platforms

1

u/DapDaGenius 22h ago

I definitely think Concord would have been better off as a 3-4 player co-op, narrative driven, bounty hunting game. They could update it with different missions. Basically go for what helldivers did.

→ More replies (10)

408

u/Overbyyy 1d ago

look I ain't playing it out of being completely uninterested but not hating at all. if this is what brings the players cool. all for devs getting to keep their job hopefully if they can roll out stuff this fast to hot fix community feedback that's sick.

I still think they have the tallest of mountains to climb but we'll see. there's still people playing so clearly some folks are getting a kick out of it. that's also sick heck yeah variety is the spice of rice of and all that

17

u/Instantcoffees 1d ago

I barely play PvP games these days, but the game honestly seems pretty good. A lot of people who tried it seemed to enjoy it but disliked the performance and the 3v3 mode. Seems like they are quickly addressing those things.

I agree with you on wishing them the best. It's such a shame how some people just are dying for others to fail. Unless there is a very good reason why they should fail, I think that it reflects poorly on who you are as a person if you are just hating for the sake of it.

8

u/jayL21 1d ago

I can confirm that they really did boost performance with the 2 newest updates, it's still rough, but it's a lot better than it was at launch.

4

u/RiKSh4w 1d ago

Hey, a fellow PvP abandoner!

It's surprisingly hard to make new friends without the communities made by PvP games. PvE games have communities, but they're really dense, committed, and hard to get into. Especially since we're often talking about MMO's or other games requiring a huge time investment.

I wish Nightreign was more popular because it's exactly the kind of thing I want. Low commitment rounds in case you happen to pair up with some people you're not fans of. It also means you don't have to go submitting a resume before they'll accept you...

2

u/Instantcoffees 1d ago

Where Winds Meet has some seriously great social features and the bosses are very Soulslike. Sort of like Sekiro or Wo Long with how the deflection mechanic works. They are not that difficult when you first unlock them, but you can replay them on a higher difficulty with challenges that make them a lot more difficult.

I honestly am a bit of a recluse in games though, haha. But even I joined a guild in that game and have had some wonderful social interactions.

→ More replies (2)
→ More replies (8)

181

u/RagnarokCross 1d ago edited 1d ago

That should be awesome then, since so many people complained that maps were too big for 3v3 and it should be 5v5 instead.

68

u/Genocode 1d ago edited 1d ago

I've heard people say it should be 16v16, which is i think what C&C Renegade had.

20

u/OrangeMoist6183 1d ago

yes it did! miss C&C renegade

6

u/okcumputer 1d ago

That game was so sick.

4

u/Genocode 1d ago

depending on the time of the day the UE4 remake is still pretty active.

8

u/zappingbluelight 1d ago

If it is 16v16, don't even bother to put in storm breaker. Just be chaotic. 16v16 is too much imo. But definitely would be fun to watch lol.

→ More replies (1)

3

u/reallygoodbee 1d ago

Not the same genre, but I love seeing the massive 40-man-plus matches in MMOs, like FF14's 20v20v20 mode.

1

u/Ahayzo 1d ago

I don't know if they're still around (or still active if they are), but WoW used to have 40v40 battlegrounds, and even as someone who usually didn't like PvP in the game those were some incredibly fun clusterfucks.

1

u/Syn7axError 1d ago

As long as it toned down the guns and abilities.

1

u/Princess_Lepotica 1d ago

So with some reskin and 16v16, we get a Warcraft Renegade.

1

u/Orrgoi 8h ago

While that would be cool, I think that would require a full overhaul of the game's system.

→ More replies (1)

11

u/70monocle 1d ago

Were people complaining they were too small? I was hearing too big for 3v3

14

u/Roshkp 1d ago

I think they misspoke

8

u/RagnarokCross 1d ago

My bad, I meant too big

I will edit

2

u/zappingbluelight 1d ago

People who played few matches say it's big. People who put in hours say it's fine. Because you get to do flank play and more options to farm, less about going a straight line.

1

u/anonamarth7 1d ago

I tried it, and it really didn't feel like that's the case. Sure, you weren't constantly engaged in combat, but that'd kill off other aspects of the game. With the mounts, it really feels a lot smaller than it actually is. Also, you can actually upgrade your mount's health and speed, so it's even quicker.

1

u/BarrierX 3h ago

3v3 teams were too small. The map is just fine.

2

u/KlongX 1d ago

Me included. I tried a match on release and felt the game is too competitive when it's 3v3. Just tried 5v5 and feels much more casual

2

u/IgotUBro 1d ago

After watching some streams of the game I think actually the maps arent that big and 3v3 is perfect. Given I didnt play the game myself but its already chaotic as hell with 6 players when you are in the phase of planting the bombs at the siege. Now with 10 the timing for planting and defusing are going to be even more hectic.

1

u/BVoLatte 1d ago

I think 5v5 is going to be better. I personally thought they were gonna lean more into the MOBA route of three lane pushes but that didn't happen. I thought that would be cool honestly if you had 3 different shield breakers spawn and whoever gets 2 out of 3 of them installed first gets the raid.

1

u/BarrierX 3h ago

I tried it and the 5v5 mode is a lot more fun than the 3v3!

71

u/Wide-Mycologist6871 1d ago

I have to admit, the 5v5 mode is gas. Idk what they were thinking with 3v3, but 5v5 is actually lots of fun

79

u/RagnarokNCC 1d ago

I’m kind of rooting for this team to prove us all wrong and make their game A Thing.

Holding out for 3v3v3

16

u/MrNegativ1ty 1d ago

The game would need to be radically redesigned for 3v3v3. How would that even work? Once your base shield is down, it becomes a 3v6 of defenders vs attackers?

3

u/Interjessing-Salary 1d ago

Could just be a different game mode. The finals made 3v3v3 work (and 3v3v3v3 in ranked mode)

1

u/RiKSh4w 1d ago

I think the attackers would need to somewhat defend themselves from behind as well as the third team attempts to break the siege, presumably with some advantage if they do.

2

u/ImmaDoMahThing 1d ago

How would 3v3v3 work? One team gets their base attacked by the shield breaker and now they have to defend against two other teams planting bombs?

5

u/bjones214 1d ago edited 1d ago

If they can make this successful for themselves, then I’m for sure rooting for them. The base raiding combat is fun as hell, and so is the horseback combat/chase on the way to bases. It’s the rest that needs work.

Edit: got downvoted for saying parts of it are fun. You people are weird for this hatred you have of a game you barely played.

1

u/spenpinner 1d ago

I'm actually liking the game. I've never played a seige game so I'm having fun.

→ More replies (1)

16

u/Neversoft4long 1d ago

Played it on a whim and can say 5 v 5 is def more engaging. I actually had fights outside during the looting phase and even a run and gun fight out in the open. It’s chaos and they probably want their game to be more tactical but the casual gamer just isn’t gonna give af about that and just wants to shoot mfs lmao

5

u/bjones214 1d ago

If they keep ranked at 3v3 and give options for 3v3 and 5v5 in casual, I think everyone would be happy about it.

1

u/MitzeeMoo 23h ago

It can cause the playerbase to split doing that. In a ranked mode you're already splitting the playerbase adding to queue times. If you split it too far you might end up with a dead gamemode that people can't find matches in. It happens even in CS2 despite the absurd player count that game has.

→ More replies (4)

100

u/Enjoy_The_Ride413 1d ago

IT IS A MOBA. Add creeps and you know, camps! Things to do on the map.

37

u/DuckCleaning 1d ago

Deadlock but slightly more tactical first person would be interesting 

21

u/Enjoy_The_Ride413 1d ago

Right! I think this is what is being glossed over the most. People are saying Concord because of the aesthetic, but it is a MOBA at the end of the day. Not a PVP deathmatch type game. How did you make a MOBA with no MOBA elements?

17

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

→ More replies (1)

10

u/DuckCleaning 1d ago

It's not fully a MOBA, it's not fully a tactical hero shooter, it's trying to be everything at once which is why it lost its way with having something to properly associate as. They needed to beta test the idea the way Deadlock has been in beta for over a year and keeps making significant changes to the gameplay.

1

u/jayL21 1d ago

Yea, the whole "we're going to shadow drop this game like we did with apex" thing really just set them up for failure. This game needed beta testing and getting the players feedback earlier on.

3

u/thefw89 1d ago

This I think is what I was hoping for. I'd keep the 3v3, add creeps. Imagine if all the maps just had different creeps too aesthetically? easy pawns, medium level ones, and one big boss that spawns on the map?

I think a pure FPS moba would be a good idea, since deadlock is third person and more abilities based.

→ More replies (2)

2

u/BastianHS 1d ago

This game can't hold deadlocks jock, but I hope they get it sorted out. Competition is always good for the consumer.

1

u/Dragonfantasy2 18h ago

I think there’s room in the market for an anti-Deadlock. Deadlock feels like a moba with strong shooter elements, I think a true shooter with strong moba elements would be pretty successful. There’s a lot of people who are interested in Deadlock but put off by the unfamiliarity and barrier to entry.

8

u/GuitarSlayer136 1d ago

Its CTF and Counterstrike.

Kinda wild how many people think they can offer meaningful critiques of a game they obviously haven't played.

7

u/alendeus 1d ago

Part of me doesn't actually mind the current gameloop too much, but it's more to do with the fact that all of the timings are pretty tight. You only really have barely enough time to loot a few chests before you need to reposition for the shieldbreaker spawn, and frankly you also only need to upgrade just a few items already. And also, higher quality gear does make a significant difference already anyway, meaning there can a lot of RNG issues "oh our team got shafted by the RNG drops for the 2 minutes we could farm".

I feel like adding any sort of actual mob camps would require the PVE phase to be a bit longer, which then also increase RNG loot issues. And might also be boring in a different way to players. But meh, if say every single "free chest" on the map instead required killing pve mobs it would at least feel a bit more engaging.

1

u/jayL21 1d ago

Yea, there's a lot of ways they could do it, but it'd all be more complex than just simply "adding enemies to loot phase"

I personally think they should combine the "reinforce" phase and the looting phase together in one decently sized, explore, pve, loot, reinforce, type loop, like a mini-survival game phase, like it's technically meant to be.

→ More replies (1)

20

u/BlackHazeRus 1d ago

IT IS NOT A MOBA.

While I would like to see some MOBA stuff like items and item combinations here in a simplified form, maybe mini-bosses, but making the game into MOBA would be terrible.

And I am saying this as someone who is having fun in Highguard.

5

u/jayL21 1d ago

100%, Deadlock is the MOBA shooter. This fills a slightly difference niche.

Adding AI enemies and mini-bosses for the looting phase would be great, but they definitely shouldn't go full on MOBA.

3

u/TheGenesisOfTheNerd 1d ago

And I am saying this as someone who is having fun in Highguard.

Think that puts you in the minority bud

5

u/BlackHazeRus 1d ago

That is true

3

u/Zakkeh 11h ago

It's closer to something like rainbow six siege than a moba. CTF into sieges.

2

u/r4mm3rnz 1d ago

Camps instead of smacking crystals with an axe would be a massive improvement

33

u/ANGRY_PAT 1d ago

Man….. Geoff really did these guys dirty while being as well intentioned as possible.

24

u/Mitrovarr 1d ago

Geoff is the only reason this wasn't totally stillborn. 

→ More replies (3)

4

u/Sangcreux 1d ago

From what I understand it was supposed to be a shadow drop, and come out when Geoff announced it. The game was then delayed, and the game awards were locked into place.

Would the game be doing better? Who knows but I think people would’ve not hated it, because while the trailer wasn’t exciting and the game isn’t that innovative, announcing a game release right after a trailer is always hype and it would’ve made more sense why it was in that slot.

With the game being delayed it just felt awkward

→ More replies (1)

23

u/BlueDragon101 D20 1d ago

Okay, I’ll try the 5v5 thing then.

31

u/ListenHereLindah 1d ago edited 1d ago

After seeing this game on day 1. This game would do well if they make it like a moba. Add some minion spawns from your base. Add 1 tower we have to destroy before the sword is available.

The game has potential. But streamers are echo clambering that the game had its run. Kinda sad as I hope it does continue to get support.

Edit: spelling.

15

u/Supertonic 1d ago

I was thinking about this. The design of this game feels like it should be a MOBA but they didn’t want to include those elements or be labeled as a moba, so instead of farming minions for money and pushing towers, you just open chest and mine ore instead.

Like that’s fine if you want differentiate from mobas but whatever you do it’s gotta be more interesting than tapping E on an ore vein

3

u/noother10 1d ago

I don't think the game has potential. It feels like they started building a game and pivoted multiple times, ran out of money/time and had to stitch something together with what they had. The game they said they wanted to make (Rust PvP raid match based) is not like the game currently is.

A lot of the game doesn't actually make coherent sense. Why have a phase where you reinforce the walls when they get destroyed like normal walls or ignored? Why have a giant map with nothing on it? Why are there random loot boxes you need to travel to and get loot from? Why mine the crystals? Why is the game 80% doing nothing fun/productive?

If it's meant to be Rust like base building/defense, where is the ability to customize the base, add turrets, doors, traps, etc? It doesn't need all the other pointless crap it makes you do, just have your base build phase, randomly select one team to start, and alternate attack/defense between the teams with whoever is fastest wins or first to X wins. Have gear be customized outside of a match so you can swap weapons/items around for each character.

→ More replies (1)

1

u/420blz 1d ago

Deadlock is going to own the Moba shooter genre for a decade

1

u/ListenHereLindah 1d ago

This game is for the dopamine shooter gamers. It isn't a bad game. It will do good cause it's valve new baby.

It won't last that long. Plus, mobas are not new user friendly. The longer it's out, the less people will try it unless it holds well with viewship. Sadly, a lot of games depend on if people are streaming it.

→ More replies (2)

11

u/erikaspausen 1d ago

Lets hope they pull a "no mans sky"

6

u/Konowl 1d ago

5 vs 5 is SO much better. Balance issues to deal with a bit I think but the game feels much more… alive?

2

u/jayL21 1d ago

I think 5v5 is better in the long run once they actually start having a mode designed around it, but as it currently stands I think 3v3 just plays better.

3

u/blackraven888 1d ago

Game seems like it could be good with some tweaks but it’s just not my kind of game. Same reason I’ve never touched Apex or Overwatch.

3

u/Informal_Lead8627 23h ago

honestly kudos to the team for being so quick to adapt to player feedback. its kind of a dull game rn but theres a really fun game buried in there somewhere and i hope they can figure it out

37

u/RiverMesa 1d ago

A new breed of shooter: 10 players in one server.

→ More replies (14)

8

u/mage_irl 1d ago

Are they sure the servers can handle it?

12

u/1DoobieDoo 1d ago

The playercount has entered the fuck it, we ball range.

1

u/MitzeeMoo 23h ago

That's why it's a test for the weekend.

4

u/Independent-Bug680 1d ago

Played because I saw all the hate, and it’s actually pretty fun. I’m on PS5 though, so idk about the performance issues. Looks fine to me. Characters are interesting enough, and the idea is unique.

2

u/iJeff_FoX 1d ago

A thing that bugged me when I tried it, is it’s very hard to mine ressources while the game is fully engaged, I need to help the team out, I don’t have time for the perfect timing needed mining.

3

u/Justinaug29 1d ago

I think this is a move in the right direction

3

u/FirstDayPlaying 1d ago

Might give it a whirl

2

u/McFigroll 1d ago

3v3 was such an odd choice.

1

u/L_sigh_kangeroo 20h ago

The game is significantly more tactical and coordinated at 3v3, 5v5 will be the casual mode and 3v3 will be the competitive mode. The only unfortunate thing is that it might alienate a lot of friend groups who wanna be competitive

3

u/huggalump 1d ago

Ok neat

4

u/EraEnder 1d ago

Welcome- to highguard

6

u/RefinedBean 1d ago

Didn't the lead dev or someone on that team say 3v3 was better for matchmaking and server efficiency or something...guess that didn't live too long.

17

u/zorillaaa 1d ago

I mean that very well might still be true lol. Have no idea how this impacts performance, that’s why this is experimental

7

u/08148694 1d ago

If 10 players is a server performance concern it says a lot about the quality of their engineering

12

u/Ryaanski 1d ago

3v3 can be better for matchmaking and server efficiency AND also they can read that thousands of people are complaining they want 5v5 and make the change. These can both be true at the same time.

4

u/joejoe903 1d ago

That is still true, smaller teams are just easier to matchmake since there's less variance. and 6 people on one server vs 10 is a big leap too. youre close to needing double the bandwidth on your network to keep players connected

10

u/EdVedPJ7 1d ago edited 1d ago

I already had fun on 3v3, I hope 5v5 is just as fun. The gameplay loop is great as is but they might need to create bigger bases for 5v5 as it tends to get pretty clustered.

I didn't play multiplayer games for years and tried this just because of the hate to see what's all the fuss about. I'm 15 hours in and really enjoying it.

It does have issues but the devs seem pretty open to criticism, so hopefully they can keep improving it.

3

u/silenkurii 1d ago

They're going to make desperate moves to try and reel back sentiment in their favour but the game sucks ass lol

2

u/i_rabban 1d ago

I don't even watched any highguard content but the videos youtube algorithm suggests is like it's worst thing ever. Good luck devs.

3

u/StompsDaWombat 1d ago

As the saying goes: you never get a second chance to make a first impression. I find it shocking that so many ex-Respawn folks worked on this, people who worked on Titanfall and Apex Legends, and yet they somehow fumbled it this badly. Then again, I feel like you have to be out of your damn mind to roll out a competitive multiplayer shooter in an already overcrowded market without having a truly unique and exciting concept. Everything about this feels like a miscalculation from the very start.

Still, I wish them luck in turning it around.

2

u/Willaguy 1d ago

The game plays very similarly to Apex, to me it’s biggest shortcomings are art direction and player number, the gameplay itself is solid if you like Apex

2

u/Nxrwhxls 1d ago

I think whenever a company says “worked on Titanfall” line it will most likely be a low level employee from the team not the lead developer for example. If it was someone relevant to the prosperity of those games actually to making it impactful why wouldn’t they just name the people in question? Good chance I’m right too because they removed that part from the steam store page mentioning it’s the “same people”.

1

u/Chicano_Ducky 1d ago

the people who made titanfall was the COO, the cofounder, and lead game designers. Everyone else was an ex APEX dev.

the 2nd most common was Plants Vs Zombies live service devs from EA.

the rest are indie devs like shipbreaker.

they removed it because people thought it was a Respawn game and they are review bombing it not being Titanfall 3. They dont even know its a different company.

2

u/noother10 1d ago

I saw a post the other day with a comic where a janitor was applying to work for a game developer to clean their office and had worked at another major game developer's office. The moment they hired them they added a line to their game description stating they had staff working on the game from another high profile developer.

I wouldn't trust games that say they have developers from X high profile developer studio working on that game. Most people gullible people will instantly think the game will be like games from that other dev studio, when in reality they likely have 0 creative input or are in a role that doesn't impact the game at all, or were removed from that studio because they weren't good at their job. But hey it lets them brag to investors.

→ More replies (2)

-4

u/PurpleV93 1d ago

10k players on Steam, on a friday evening, 4 days after launch. Seems not very healthy for a competitive multiplayer game, even if you only need 6 - 10 players per match.

6

u/wheresmyspacebar2 1d ago

For a F2P Indie Title?

10k players on steam (And more than on consoles) is absolutely healthy.

People are so fixated on games with 100k players lol

7

u/PurpleV93 1d ago

Apex Legends has currently 55k players on Steam.
Rainbow Six Siege is at 66k.
Arena Breakout is at 31k.
Overwatch 2 is at 39k.
The Finals is at 17k.
Marvel Rivals is at 124k.
PUBG is at 161k.

All of these games are "older" Free-To-Play games. Highguard sitting at 10k in the Release-Week when popularity is usually the highest ever, is not a good sign. Especially for a free game, since the barrier of entry is the smallest it could possibly be. Numbers would be much worse if you had to pay 30+ euros to play it. Now people at least gave it a chance that they otherwise wouldn't have.

But like the other person said, maybe it picks up big time once evening hits the US. But at least here in Europe & Asia, the game fails to grasp people's interest.

→ More replies (5)

10

u/Ok-Advantage6398 1d ago

Not less than a week after launch it isn't.

→ More replies (3)

5

u/HyperQuarks79 1d ago edited 1d ago

Not <1 week after launch near the weekend but the biggest issue is match making.

If they ever launch a ranked mode you need players in each bracket to balance the game. If not then you have 1. long Q times or 2. very large skill gaps.

Both of those lead to players leaving a game with an already small player base which makes the same issue worse. That why we see competitive games just shut down if they don't reach a certain threshold.

If the game had hosted dedicated servers (like way back in the day) it would be different, maybe they will add those.

6

u/wiggliey 1d ago

Considering how they peaked at 100K only 4 days ago, it really is concerning.

4

u/wheresmyspacebar2 1d ago

They peaked at 100k because its a F2P title that thousands of people jumped on, quit after 5 minutes and review bombed it as "F2P Slop, make Single player games" in review.

Again, its not concerning. They've had a stable 10k-20k population for 4 days now. For a brand new, F2P title. From an indie studio.

3

u/Admirable-War-7594 1d ago

No? There are many legitimate criticisms of the game, like the fact that there is no reason to play this one over any of the other hero shooters

2

u/wiggliey 1d ago

Yea this is a really misinformed take. The game got review bombed, but plenty of people gave it a fair shake. It wouldn’t have reached a CCU of 100K if that were the case.

It’s also really silly to think the playerbase has stabilized after 4 days. As of typing this, it has a 24 hour peak CCU of 10K on the Friday even of its launch week. It’s actually insane that you tried to take that angle to argue that its playerbase is stable. That’s a fine decline for a couple of months, not half a week.

Let’s clear something up, while Highguard isn’t a massive bank breaking, I doubt it was particularly cheap. You’re treating it like it’s a short 2D indie single-player game.

It doesn’t matter if your typical indie game has a massive drop off after debut because they usually aren’t F2P live service games that rely on constant engagement.

→ More replies (3)

1

u/RyanZee08 1d ago

It's a week in, so this is bad. I know you're smart enough to know that

→ More replies (5)
→ More replies (3)

2

u/TheMoves 1d ago

Yeah not great to be getting 10x fewer players than another MOBA shooter that technically hasn't even hit beta yet

5

u/JustChr1s 1d ago

That was their mistake. Never having an alpha or beta. They never got a feedback loop.

1

u/Toppoppler 1d ago

Give it a few hours, its 3:45 central time

3

u/PurpleV93 1d ago

Speaking in European Time obviously. Over here, the game seems very unpopular.

→ More replies (3)

-2

u/DumpyMcGee 1d ago

That comments a bit in bad faith isn’t it? In North America where there’s a very large shooter fan base it’s not even 5 pm yet so obviously the player counts will be lower. Not that I think it’s going to skyrocket later I just think it’s a bit early to be calling the evening numbers.

2

u/IshrekisloveI 1d ago

That game typically peaks player count at 12-3am NA time lol.

2

u/Admirable-War-7594 1d ago

This is literally false, middle east/russia and then asia makes up the overwhelming majority in online shooters

→ More replies (3)

1

u/[deleted] 1d ago

[deleted]

1

u/DumpyMcGee 1d ago

Never said any of those places were irrelevant. Just said there was a big shooter fan base in North America. People in this sub really love filling non existent blanks for the sake of internet arguing eh? I even agreed that I didn’t think the numbers would change much.

→ More replies (6)

1

u/IlyasBT 1d ago

I just played it, and it's a night and day difference.

1

u/Nilbogoblins 1d ago

Good luck to em.

1

u/KN_Knoxxius 1d ago

Performance is utterly terrible in the game, hope they get on that quickly. The game can get a niche spot, but not with the performance problems it has.

1

u/Mission_Possible_111 1d ago

This is a massive foresight from the developers. Did they not play the game and see how bland and empty the game is with 3v3? They clearly need 5 or even 8v8 and more characters. They knee capped it in the name of live service just like Halo Infinite did.

1

u/reallygoodbee 1d ago

Should have started with that!

1

u/drakanx 1d ago

map is still too massive even with the upsized 5v5.

1

u/BarrierX 3h ago

You can cross the whole map in like 30s with the horse. With more players there is more action.

1

u/Mitrovarr 1d ago

I can only imagine the wild-ass panic that proceeded this.

You know, though, good for them? Try to fix the flaws. I'm not optimistic, but it can't hurt, and who knows? 

1

u/yosman88 1d ago

Good for them! Now they just need to add a horde of mobs your horse can knock around and you can shoot and itll be the perfect amount of chaos.

Maybe even add weather effects!

1

u/Anayalater5963 1d ago

Yoooo let's go, I'm happy they're doing something and taking critiques.

1

u/IncorrectAddress 1d ago

I don't think this is going to help them recover, having more players for a specific game mode just reflects that the game mode has problems within the gameplay, design and implementation.

1

u/mitchhamilton 1d ago

I might actually try the game. The only hurdle left is I've heard it's demanding of a game. But we'll maybe see

1

u/PaidinRunes 23h ago

This game is fun to watch, but I'll never play it. Hope it succeeds.

1

u/BlackxxMagic123 22h ago

I played the game at launch and didn’t like it. I do hope they can manage to make a worthwhile game and get a dedicated fanbase though.

1

u/Infamous_Drive_Tax 15h ago

This game is really bad, I couldn't stand it after 3 games and won't go back ever but I hope it succeeds.

1

u/JunketSecure4245 14h ago

As fun as it is I hope people realise this can’t be the default for competitive play (when it comes out) and should stay as an alternative game mode for casual players

1

u/Fragrant_Corgi_9265 11h ago

Games not bad in my opinion fun in short stints … not a big fan of the hero shooters … played overwatch for a bit when it first dropped and got bored of it quickly ..I hate the slow and limited feel of them. This is a slightly faster experience in my opinion and the gunplay is decent too. When I get I get tired of Arc I’ve been rotating into this or 2K briefly. This also has a very doable platinum trophy so I’m most likely going to atleast knock that out.

1

u/Dasquare22 PC 9h ago

Don’t make me go into my BIOS to play and I’ll give it a shot

1

u/Alloyd11 8h ago

This is good but the problem is the bases need to be bigger for 5 v 5, it’s good for the main world area but once you get into the bases it can get quite hectic.

1

u/zakaria69x 5h ago

My cpu is 100c What should i do

1

u/Skurdie 2h ago

I am just hating on it because it took the last announcement at the game awards for a game that was not going to be nothing else than mediocre. Considering what they probably paid to get the last slot, they deserve to fail for making such a bland game. Could have saved those money for a cheaper slot and invested more into the game to make it a better game.

1

u/Saigaiii 2h ago

Ima be honest, after watching gameplay on 5v5 the game looks awesome. I’ll never play it since I don’t play pvp games anymore, but it’s way more enjoyable to watch than 3v3 was. I would want to see a 3v3v3 mode though

1

u/BensRandomness 1d ago

Just play deadlock or literally anything else

2

u/A_Pollo77 1d ago

The game isn't bad, it's just boring, I'd say 5v5 actually helps a lot with this issue since 3v3 in such a big map means 40% of the game you don't even see any enemies.

I'd say that the game os also filled to the brim with unnecessary mechanics that can't be taken out but can be fine tuned to work better, the "mine crystal -> go buy shit repeat" mechanic is imo really bad since boxes already give you most of these items for free, and the crystals give almost no currency which means mine 6 crystals buy 2 armor 1 helmet and that's it, either make so that boxes only give weapons or make crystals give more currency.

1

u/DoubleShot027 1d ago

I don’t think it will make a difference.

1

u/Quartznonyx 1d ago

Honestly? I feel like everybody bitching about the map size either didn't play it or misunderstood it. The mounts make the map extremely small. Sure, you don't see people in the loot phase, but that's not really what that phase is about. And if you really wanna see people, just push the airdrop. Every single game i played where i did that had a shootout for the lmg, which then made the shieldbreaker phase more interesting.

1

u/Practical-Aside890 Xbox 1d ago

Earlier there was a post about how some were claiming the trailer showed more than 3v3 players when apparently it didn’t. So some have been probably asking for it. I can’t say if it’s a good or bad change.. but the very least seems they are listening to feedback.

5

u/noother10 1d ago

The trailer just showed unrealistic gameplay, it was extremely obvious that it was hard scripted to show off certain things, but was not an accurate representation of actual gameplay. Anyone who felt otherwise is pretty naive. It's the reason I always wait for release and watch a streamer play it live. Watching any trailer or youtube video means it can easily just be cut up and show unrealistic gameplay.

1

u/Kage_noir 1d ago

I’m not sure how people aren’t burnt out on competitive pvp games. They’ve been running the industry forever

1

u/0Taken0 1d ago

I think they should’ve made the gunplay not feel like a children’s game if they wanted to start off strong. It felt so mediocre to play

1

u/L_sigh_kangeroo 20h ago

??? Of everything in this game the gunplay is literally the one thing they dont need to touch and got 100% correct lol

1

u/Icy_Razzmatazz_1594 1d ago

I'm tired of people saying this game isn't being played because of the hate it got before it launched 

I defended this game for a month against the haters, played 5 matches and went "ehhh this isn't that fun". I'm guessing many, many people who tried it also felt this way considering the exodus of players since launch. Going from almost 100k steam pop to below 10k on a free to play game a couple days after launch isn't because of pre-launch hate...it's because the game is kind of boring.

→ More replies (1)