Multiplayer issues

[JCrowe]

eehh ... don't be too hasty; it's hard to judge when the facts are not all in evidence. The company could have good reasons for its policy: legal exposure, bureaucratic protocols, employee work concerns, etc. On a basic level, it might not be a very efficient use of Aaron, Bob, Joe & Sally's time to "monitor" every forum that carries mention of their company’s products, and responding to each signal of distress fired into the electronic night of cyberspace.

In any event, a ticket has the advantage of giving them lots of specifics and a "live" example on which to work. Not always the case with complaints taken off a forum, unless they reach out to the individual complaining, and, more-or-less ... set up a ticket. In which case, you might then discover that the solution to complainant’s problem is very simple, and you just spent an hour of a developer’s time to fix something a minimum-wage lackey could have solved off an answer chart for $3.99.

Regardless, it's clear that the game needs a lot of rework, and those kinds of changes aren't something they can run on the fly. Consider the modest improvement between versions 1.01 and 1.05 - and the fact that it took three (if not four) weeks to bridge that small gap and do the little that it did. And they still have AI work, unit rebalancing, the aforementioned multiplayer, and (in my opinion) rework of some unit mechanics. (Stationary nukes, visible subs, sea spaces exempted from bombardment, ‘moving-target’ infantry … take your pick.) None of this is an easy fix.

So, might as well send a ticket and a list of comments for fixes, upgrades, and alterations. It might be a while in coming, but honestly – would a major like EA give such suggestions the time of day? (No. No they would not. See “Legal Dept.”) It’s kinda neat to be able to participate in a meaningful way on a work-in-progress, even if it does mean playing guinea-pig. Those opportunities don’t come around very often.

[Skirmisher]

Originally Posted by JCrowe

would a major like EA give such suggestions the time of day? (No. No they would not. See “Legal Dept.”) It’s kinda neat to be able to participate in a meaningful way on a work-in-progress, even if it does mean playing guinea-pig. Those opportunities don’t come around very often.

I expected to drive the car right after paying for it and leaving the showroom. That's not unreasonable.

I'm not trying to defend EA (god knows they don't need it),but they would have released a Ready-to-go piece of software.

The game should have bore a huge red label-

Warning- This game is still in development and might not work as expected.

[JCrowe]

Very true. They pulled way too early on the trigger, probably because they hoped to book additional sales before their year-end close. Which, naturally, will annoy many and dissuade others from buying - sacrificing total sales for a quick advance number. Or not. Their management team could have had something else in mind. In either case, it really is something they ought to have communicated more directly.

I say directly, because management would probably retort that we have the demo, so it's not like we "didn't know" what we were getting into in the first place. We had the opportunity to "try before you buy", and if we chose not to, then we can hardly fuss about the product in hand. That's a position I've seen other indies take in recent years. In fact, I'd swear I've seen it brought up somewhere in Shrap's forum.

Of course, it's a position that totally overlooks the fact that they often nerf the demo, and it can't be relied upon to represent the game's true playing experience. And it would be hard for any reasonable person to believe that the "full game", bought-and-paid-for, would sport such a mentally-challenged AI as the one offered in the demo.

Whatever the arguments, there's still hope that they will hammer this game into a winner. It's got a lot of potential, and I'm willing to give them the time. But once bit, twice shy; I think a lot of us will pause before we drop a thirty on their next title.