Thoughts on the new Rage Burst, Mark for Death, & 'Onslaught'

There is a question for the Community Council if the majority agreed to reuse damage in %, instead of numerical damage?
Why not +80 damage? (forgot about … broken skills)
Is it possible +100 damage for the first bullet?

The problem with flat damage is that damage is calculated by bullet. So a flat bonus favours desproportionatelly low tier burst weapons with a lot of bullets, and much less one shot high damage guns. Also an implementation like that would equalize many weapons of the game, making for example a pistol eventually more powerful than a sniper rifle if the bonus value increases enough. In other words, a flat bonus inherently unbalances all weapons in the game, so it is not a good design.

In my opinion a good design would be +50%-70% (depending on the difficulty) damage with a minimum of 10 damage per bullet . But is not bad as it is, they just need to update the game info to say what the ability really does.

By some miracle, maybe the weather, I forgot that this game (Devs) is about broken rules.

I really … for a moment … forgot.

I would say that is actually a nice feature. The way balistics work in this game is what makes it so special for me. Even if PP tried to do a more complex system than in any other game of the genre before this one, and has some issues because of it.

So imho, even if the flat damage bonus the ability had before was not working, and even if the ability as it is now is bugged as you should not be able to stack it and despite showing the wrong description. The rules of the game are not broken at all, there is just a ton of small and not so small issues that still need work.

It doesn’t work this way.

We test early builds, we give individual feedback when asked (and when not asked) and discuss among ourselves much like here on the forum but in a different format. It’s up to the devs to use our feedback, if they want.

We don’t vote on stuff, because we don’t represent anyone and nobody voted us.

We are not salary testers. We bought the game with Our own money, and we spend Our time for free, doing work instead of Devs.
And if Devs do not listen to Us, then this is Deception (broken rules?).
(Half of the forum is Constructive criticism)

If Voland signed only the NDA (on nondisclosure), and not a contract for working as a tester, then there is no Format, there are conditions that are comfortable for Volond.
And he can… not wait for permission from above… if he wants?

CC is waiting for Devs, Devs is waiting for Chief, Chief is looking at the Contract, The Contract is written by Investors who do not care about constructive criticism of the players.

And active players are not allowed to Love The Game.

There are tens of thousands of players who bought the game, the vast majority of them have no interest or no time to express their opinions here or elsewhere on how the game should be. Yet SG has to consider the wishes and desires of all their current and prospective customers, not only those that are more vocal.

The devs make the game, we play it and comment on it. Being in CC means I get to play earlier builds and give feedback on them, hopefully making the game better. That’s the deal.

This is absolute nonsense, from start to finish.


The “Opinion of the Silent Majority” can be interpreted in different ways.

Everything Ingenious creates a Trend by itself. In which the Active, only support him, and do not go Against. (Custom Options + Modding)

This is Reality.

And the rest, you can’t refute and I can’t confirm, but it describes it well:
Devs’ Silence - instead of Live Feedback, lack of Modding - despite promises, at Every level of Development.

Do you really think the CC would criticize too little or not at all?
I strongly doubt it. I also suspect that the criticism is going in many directions. Also in the direction that everything is still far too difficult and yet more unrealistic, overpowering functions should be built in for the player.

What the devs do with all the criticism and feedback is a whole different story.

I still believe that your expectations of the CC is way too high and your criticism in their direction often not really fair. I think they are nothing more than a group of super testers for upcoming versions with very little direct influence on the development decisions itself.


Hello folks. Been resting PP for a few months - amazed to see this thread I started back in August is still running. I’ve read about the latest update, but I’m not sure I’m really feeling this game anymore - my will to persevere with it might have dried up.

Are we any further along with balance issues?

Honestly, if you think you need a will to persevere, maybe u should wait more.

I finished the game in veteran in the last version, and I loved it. But i can also see that is certainly not for all, and most of the complains about difficulty and pace have a grain of true behind them. For what I have read, the game is going in the right direction.

Personally after 130 hours of gameplay to finish my first run in vet, I will wait for the new DLC to take it again. But im eager to do it, as I really loved the experience.

If you are unsure right now, just wait, till you feel like it, im sure the new DLC will come out soon enough, and will bring a lot to the table. Maybe something that will make you again excited to try it.

1 Like

I think I can safely say that the Community Council spend most of their time telling the devs in extreme detail everything they think is wrong with the game - though we do it from a position of great love for the game.

We want it to improve, we want to smooth out the balance issues, most of us actually want Legendary & Heroic Difficulty to be harder and all the stupid skill exploits to go away, because as it stands the game becomes a cakewalk in its latter stages unless you aggressively self-limit the way you play.

But a lot of our discussion is also about how the game needs to be easier and more intuitively understandable to new players and those who want to play on Easy or Veteran.

But anyone who expects us to be able to force or instruct the devs to go in a particular direction has no idea of how the CC works or is supposed to work. We are only a consultant body, telling the devs what we think and reporting back trends that we spot in the discussions on these forums.

Hell, if it worked the way that NoStas seems to think it should, we’d have Second Wave Options, all the Terminator Builds would have been eradicated and Easy would be really easy by now; because that’s what I’ve been incessantly calling for over at least the past 2 years.


There is you, there is me, there are likes under your post. Just no Live Feedback from Devs. There is a plan, 1 - try to wait for an answer in this post (which is doubtful), 2 - make a topic with key questions (possibly on reddit) and put them on the ticket to Canny. I don’t think this will change much, but it should Explain a lot.
There are two problems, the first is that Devs is uncommunicative, and the second is that the PP Community cannot get together.

Maybe it is a resource problem, but to tell what they aiming for, what vision they have would help a lot.

It is not a surprise if you merge wizard builds with realistic or simulation mechanics. I don’t know if the majority like this combination, but I like only the second part.

First, I want to say that I think SG could and should do a better job on this front.

However, it’s also not so easy…

  • It does take up resources, because the people doing the communication and the people working on the game are not the same; in other words, the devs need to take time off what they are doing to explain what it is they are doing to the people who will then communicate it to the players

  • communicating with players is not easy because passions rise quite fast and these efforts can easily backfire; I think most of us who have been here for a while have fond memories of UV and appreciated his involvement and frankness, but even so it’s not like his efforts were always universally appreciated by the community

  • giving a vision or a roadmap is a recipe for disappointment and charges of unfulfilled promises. PP is being developed in an iterative manner; bugs are fixed, new content added and some content changed all the time. Something works, something doesn’t. A feature or a way the devs want the game to play a year from now might be scrapped in 6 months for a variety of reasons (players don’t want it, unexpected difficulties, devs stop liking it)

As I said, I do think that SG can do a better job at communicating with the community.

On the other hand, having spent a few weeks on the Steam forums myself I have to say I can’t blame anyone for not wanting to engage with that crowd :wink:


To be objective, I do not have the life and business experience of a skilled person. But the weekly meeting / report was what was effective. Analyze this in a month and filter it through the PR department, and then approve it at the next meeting / report.

Imo, there are two main things here, Inbound and Outbound. And IMO it can be different people.
Incoming communication - note-taking, grouping and analysis.
Outgoing communication - Regularly share your plans, and respond to problematic and main things from the Incoming communication list.

Plans always change, and the one who wants to leave will leave. The main thing here is to explain everything well, for those who want to stay. The situation with the “explanations” for the exclusivity of the EGS is criminal. This should have been done in good time, frankly, with respect for yourself and those who believed you.

Imo, at least 50% of the negative is legitimate, as a result of the SG’s mistakes. And another 30% of the negativity is legitimate, as a result of avoiding / not correcting these and other mistakes of the SG. Of course, you can close the studio and go to earn manual labor. :hammer_and_wrench:

Procedures, meeting, reports, etc. is necessary for running a business, but we are players (consumers), not managers, employees or investors. Would it be a good marketing decision to share this kind of info (edited, of course) with consumers? I don’t know, I can see reasons for and against it, but what I’m certain of is that as a player I’m not entitled to this sort of thing.

That sounds great in theory, but in practice… Every piece of information provided by the devs is immediately subject to heated discussions, with a part of the players necessarily feeling neglected or left out, their wishes unanswered all of this before they had a chance to see the idea implemented.

Or they can choose to do the game they want and hope that players will like it.

Look, as I said, I do think that SG could do a better job at communicating with their playerbase, and I hope that they will do something this year like they did last year with the Snapshot “suggestions” on Canny.

But you can’t have your cake and eat it too: you can’t say “devs, stop worrying about what half of your playerbase wants, just do a great game… Which it would be if only you would follow the directives of a miniscule, but vocal group of self-appointed representatives of a minor subset of all players (who being all of 3 still can’t agree among themselves on what they actually want)” :wink:

Well said, but in the end it all depends on success. The player doesn’t care about the internal processes. What counts is “fun” and “challenge”. If both are not right, the game will not be successful. It’s as simple as that. Whether CC are useful or devs listen to players will show where the journey goes. I don’t see any significant improvement so far. Let’s hope for the best. That goes for both sides.

You forgot to add that this is your personal point of view. And that it might not be right for others.

In practice, lies will be made public… and Respect will be reinforced by the Truth. (Sounds pompous, but short and clear.)

Your proof? Otherwise, it was discussed.

Why then do you write here on the forum? Why vote for Canny? Let everything resolve itself. (And Devs will strangle the PP and open the countdown for PP2)