Love the quote Cory, thats going in my signature, sorry! ;-)
Because there was a tsunami of gameplay changes that had a negative influence on the alien gameplay I'm sure some of the posts & topics here were a bit overreacted. I guess people "just want to be heard" and topics like "Marines are OP now" do get allot of attention. I still enjoy playing the game, I think the new gameplay like the ARC and ns_summit have def contributed to that.
Also I can't believe Hugh doesn't get payed, where do you get all that free time :D?
I love your vids and enthusiasm NS2HD, but it's true that a bit more of illustration and discussion of the controversies we have on the forum would be a nice improvement.
Too the people not understanding some of the decisions....
Some of the decisions are functionality It takes alot of work to tie in art assets and coding to bring something new into the game. Once it is in the game then they can adjust the functionality.
If you do not understand the work...that's fine...but for most of us who do... +UW is doing good work. +These things come in steps.
Some of the decisions are possibly done to trigger feedback... We are UW's unofficial test team. They may do things to trigger feedback from us. Not to hurt us ...to make the game better.
For instance the problem with DI was it was too hard to kill. The implementation was to make the kill points focused. Their first pass COULD have chosen low numbers so it was easy to kill, so that they could then bump the numbers up gradually to a happy medium.
I am NOT saying they did that I am saying they COULD be doing that. Like all of you I do not KNOW what they think I can only GUESS.
Finally When you react in anger (this sucks, you guys suck) you either get a) ignored b) anger c) defense
If you think you have a valid observation...talk like an adult. You have a better chance of being listened too and if you are not...then it is the other persons' loss. This is an incredibly valuable skill in survival, practicing it on the internet is difficult, but not without benefit.
PS: If you want to understand more about how game makers make games...Sirlin is an excellent resource... <a href="http://www.sirlin.net/article-archive/" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/article-archive/</a> His articles are well constructed and brief.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
<!--quoteo(post=1860217:date=Jul 12 2011, 05:16 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Jul 12 2011, 05:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860217"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Huh? The patch notes is EXACTLY what was fixed/added for the patch. No misrepresentation. No lying. Patch notes are not going to list bugs, or issues, or balance problems, or people's personal opinions about what they think sucks. To say we are hyping up these patches is pretty unfair. --Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i love how cory jumped in and gave Chris the "huh?! you crazy son!" reply.. lol... some people, man, i just dont get them..
I like 180. I’m having trouble adjusting to slowdown, knockback and lurk flight, but that’s just part of playing in an ever changing game. Overall the game play is getting better. It’s WIP after all. I wish I could get 300 FPS like in DODS instead of 40/50. I don’t know how much the devs pay attention to the forums but here’s an old quote for them. “When you are up to your @ss in alligators, it is difficult to remind yourself that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.â€
I think I addressed this kind of topic before in the League of Legends community forum. It went like this (adopted to NS2):
I think in order to respond properly to a <strike>server</strike> Patch issue like this, as a player, you have to decide on 1 of 2 things.
1. I don't *really* care what is involved with <strike>running, maintaining and/or fixing a service such as LoL</strike> (okay I will stop using strikeout now to show my adaption of my original post..the rest will just be adjusted)developing, designing and/or fixing a game like NS2, I just want it to work.
2. I want to know exactly why the game is bugged/broken/not what I expected, this includes technical limitations and/or financial limitations + and/or development decisions etc.
<b>Explanation of choice number 1:</b>
This is the most common approach for people, but it is also the most uninformed, although not necessarily unjust. It genuinely is a fair enough wish to want a game you like to be available for you to play, especially if you invested money into it. The only thing I can say is, please consider that yelling, screaming, making conspiracy theories of whats "really going on", saying the developers are lying, saying you won't play the game anymore and you will drag several people with you - Won't fix the game.
The assumption of nefarious intent of your service/game provider, is at best an uninformed one, at most of the time, plain stupid on your part. Your service/game provider has every wish and desire, even greater than you, for their service/game to perform well. What do you think makes their money? Their game, reputation, attitude, efficiency and so on. It is much more helpful for you to assume, off the bat, that your game provider is doing *Every possible thing* that they can, to improve the game you're paying for...if it amuses you, you can even imagine your game provider running around amongst each other, flailing their arms and screaming, and some just running in circles going "whatdowedowhatdowedowhatdowedo" and "ohgodohgodohgodohgodohgod" etc....Because in effect thats whats going on in their heads sometimes. (Cory, I'm looking at you)
There is nothing you can do, that will speed up the process. However I grant you that you have every right to be dissatisfied with a patch and/or the state of the game - Thats how progress is made..well not just..but it certainly adds an element of incentive, especially in the case of NS2, but hopefully you will do it in a more meaningful way after reading this..or not..I leave that up to you.
<b>Explanation of choice number 2</b>
If you genuinely, truly want to know or somehow have an interest in what has caused a game to be bugged beyond the basic "The game isn't fully optimized", and want to argue from a technical standpoint. I think it stands to reason that at the very least you need to gather all the information relevant to making you case, and most importantly: Do so without an agenda in mind. Really the worst thing you can do, if you want to argue technical stuff, is decide beforehand whats "really" going on and that you're dealing with incompetent people who just want to run off with your money like a shady car salesman (btw Cory, is this 1979 Trans am supposed to smoke like a coal locomotive and make 'splodey sounds?? :|) and doesn't have a care in the world for your enjoyment, well being and the money you have given them - This is an unhelpful attitude and it will only serve to damage your ability to do proper critical thinking, damage your basic trust in people (I know its hard to trust people nowadays, and you should be careful, but there is such a thing as exaggeration), damage the company and damage your reputation in the eyes of your peers who know better.
Now, lets assume you've gathered all the technical information at this point. Suppose you now understand whats going on with the game, and you also understand that Uknown Worlds understands the same thing - What do you do with this information? Well one of several things..One option is to simply enjoy that you now understand a great deal more about the workings of complicated game development and/or problems. Knowing something after having put the work into understanding it, is a great feeling I can tell you.
Another option is to perhaps educate other people about it? Try to appeal to their reason and explain why they should care.
Another option to go along with any of the above is to make a reasonable, well thought out argument in respects to what you know and your experience, as to why perhaps it shouldn't take this long given perfect conditions..so clearly there is something at play here that is delaying the solution, and you think it'd be fair if Unknown Worlds informed you about what that is. A request I'm very convinced that they'd love to answer considering how forthcoming they have been in other threads about information and answers.
<b>Conclusion</b>
The point is, just yelling or complaining without real content or with an agenda in mind, you will only get ignored because it is rather insulting and sometimes infuriating to actual real people running around on the other side, that all you have to say to them, is that they suck and don't know what the hell they're doing, and they deserve to fail. What answer do you want? Really? Truly? "Yes we're absolutely incompetent oh and by the way, that car will fall apart after 100 miles mwahahahahah" ? Really?
Again, I leave the choices up to you, but I still hope you consider your choices with a bit more care, because the only way you're going to get through to a company, is if you stand out from the crowd and also have a good case. And in case you were wondering, no, whining isn't a good case.
<!--quoteo(post=1860217:date=Jul 13 2011, 01:16 AM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Jul 13 2011, 01:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860217"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Huh? The patch notes is EXACTLY what was fixed/added for the patch. No misrepresentation. No lying. Patch notes are not going to list bugs, or issues, or balance problems, or people's personal opinions about what they think sucks.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
No they aren't, EXACTLY what was changed in a patch would reflect the quality of what is in the patch, which often is rather poor. Such as 178 when the fade blink was changed, it didn't say anything about 'and also the game will be unplayable for marines because we gave the fade toggleable invincibility without adding anything to balance it out because we didn't have time to think about that'. Or 179, which claimed to fix the server lag, and said nothing about 'but we didn't test whether the server actually worked afterwards so it might break half of the servers that try to run this build' or 180, which says nothing about the incredibly half finished nature of the cyst mechanic which is the main reason why it's such an annoying thing to play with.
I don't mind if those things are the case, but if you're going to release experimental/half finished/rushed features, point out that they are experimental/half finished/rushed in the changelog, like you did for the knockback change. That way I know you know it needs fixing, if you give no indication of that what exactly am I supposed to do other than assume the bad changes are deliberate? I mean, they're pretty obvious the first time you play a game with any of these patches, so it doesn't make a lot of sense that you wouldn't know about them before you release. As you said you have playtesters, bugs which affect few people or which are only present on high-load servers or which otherwise only show up in large scale tests, those are obviously unavoidable, but simple and glaring errors which you neglect to mention on release? That is a little harder to explain.
I don't actually think it's deliberate deception, although that is certainly a logical conclusion given that lying about the quality of your product is a perfectly normal advertising strategy, I would rather assume it's something like it just didn't occur to you that giving that kind of comprehensive changelog would be appreciated. It is also possible you genuinely don't know about any of these issues beforehand, but if that's the case, I really have to question whether doing little to no testing at all is a good approach, because it's producing some serious issues in the patches, and making the open testing far more difficult. Mass feedback cannot be useful to you if all you're getting is 'this huge issue is annoying', which you yourself said you are getting, there's a reason nobody cares about fade ducking or animation fixes, and it's because you're shipping patches with game breaking issues, it's hard to appreciate small but measurable improvements when what you mostly notice is that the game has acquired some new and fascinating way to infuriate you as you try to play it.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
<!--quoteo(post=1860435:date=Jul 13 2011, 10:49 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860435"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No they aren't, EXACTLY what was changed in a patch would reflect the quality of what is in the patch, which often is rather poor. Such as 178 when the fade blink was changed, it didn't say anything about 'and also the game will be unplayable for marines because we gave the fade toggleable invincibility without adding anything to balance it out because we didn't have time to think about that'. Or 179, which claimed to fix the server lag, and said nothing about 'but we didn't test whether the server actually worked afterwards so it might break half of the servers that try to run this build' or 180, which says nothing about the incredibly half finished nature of the cyst mechanic which is the main reason why it's such an annoying thing to play with.
I don't mind if those things are the case, but if you're going to release experimental/half finished/rushed features, point out that they are experimental/half finished/rushed in the changelog, like you did for the knockback change. That way I know you know it needs fixing, if you give no indication of that what exactly am I supposed to do other than assume the bad changes are deliberate? I mean, they're pretty obvious the first time you play a game with any of these patches, so it doesn't make a lot of sense that you wouldn't know about them before you release. As you said you have playtesters, bugs which affect few people or which are only present on high-load servers or which otherwise only show up in large scale tests, those are obviously unavoidable, but simple and glaring errors which you neglect to mention on release? That is a little harder to explain.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realize that those things you say that are not said are implied by the term beta? and testing? seriously. The issues you mention didn't necesseraly have to be known before the release, and even if they where, its part of the testing. Really, that is what beta testing is all about. if you are not happy to beta test, feel free to wait for the final release, until then, expect things to break, specially if new features are involved.
<!--quoteo(post=1860438:date=Jul 13 2011, 09:55 PM:name=Asraniel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asraniel @ Jul 13 2011, 09:55 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860438"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->You do realize that those things you say that are not said are implied by the term beta? and testing? seriously. The issues you mention didn't necesseraly have to be known before the release, and even if they where, its part of the testing. Really, that is what beta testing is all about. if you are not happy to beta test, feel free to wait for the final release, until then, expect things to break, specially if new features are involved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is difficult to beta test when every patch has massive and glaring issues which obscure any benefit of large scale testing. Large scale testing is useful to find things which are otherwise hard to find, to have lots of people looking for tiny bugs that you might not otherwise find, if the only thing anyone is going to care about is something you could find in half an hour with a group of proper playtesters, you're wasting your open beta.
I know from experience that there is no point releasing a level for public testing if it isn't pretty well balanced and has as many of the exploits fixed as possible, because otherwise what happens is people play it once, hate it, complain about the same issue everyone else is complaining about, and never touch it again. On the other hand if you release it and it works pretty well, people point out the small and hard to find issues to you, you fix, them, and you end up with a largely bug-free level at the end that people can enjoy playing, and will be inclined to enjoy because they haven't had a bad experience with it. It's beneficial for you as the developer to get useful feedback, and it's beneficial for the players because they get a better product.
Sometimes it isn't avoidable, sometimes you genuinely do need to just test it and see what happens, but if you're doing that, tell people first that you know it's going to be crap, but you need the information to make it better. Promise them outright that if it doesn't work you'll change it, and if you do that by and large, they will be more forgiving than if you don't.
AsranielJoin Date: 2002-06-03Member: 724Members, Playtest Lead, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Playtester, Retired Community Developer
edited July 2011
<!--quoteo(post=1860440:date=Jul 13 2011, 10:57 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 10:57 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860440"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is difficult to beta test when every patch has massive and glaring issues which obscure any benefit of large scale testing. Large scale testing is useful to find things which are otherwise hard to find, to have lots of people looking for tiny bugs that you might not otherwise find, if the only thing anyone is going to care about is something you could find in half an hour with a group of proper playtesters, you're wasting your open beta.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
While this might be true, it doesn't change the fact that the changelog is correct, and while some issues are big (even though some actually are not, and people think they are), they are not always known. Perhaps because the features was introduced at the end of a internal cycle, or for some othe reason.
edit: just saw that you edited your post.
Well, UWE could release fewer patches, lets say every month or two. But i somehow doubt that people would be happy. Patches with big issues tend to have a more or less quick follow up patch, so the "bad" patches are usually not around for very long.
<!--quoteo(post=1860441:date=Jul 13 2011, 10:01 PM:name=Asraniel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asraniel @ Jul 13 2011, 10:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860441"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->While this might be true, it doesn't change the fact that the changelog is correct, and while some issues are big (even though some actually are not, and people think they are), they are not always known. Perhaps because the features was introduced at the end of a internal cycle, or for some othe reason.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Then like I said, you should do more internal testing, even if it means delaying the patch for a week, longer development times are far better than blowing your chance, believe me.
<!--quoteo(post=1860441:date=Jul 13 2011, 10:01 PM:name=Asraniel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asraniel @ Jul 13 2011, 10:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860441"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, UWE could release fewer patches, lets say every month or two. But i somehow doubt that people would be happy. Patches with big issues tend to have a more or less quick follow up patch, so the "bad" patches are usually not around for very long.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need to do both, if you have issues, you need to fix them before release, if you still have issues afterwards, you need to patch them out immediately.
It's annoying, very annoying, but if you don't people sour on the idea very quickly. I do actually like NS2, when it works you can see the improvements over NS1, and I quite liked NS1 when it was new. But I cannot help but worry that if this patch trend keeps up, it's going to end up a lot less popular than it could be.
<!--coloro:#FF8C00--><span style="color:#FF8C00"><!--/coloro-->You came back to the forums just to act this way? -Digz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
UWE is notorious for hype and biting off more than they can chew (ex Fall 2009 and the ATI competitive tournament). You'll learn over time that this is because they are really enthusiastic about creating their games and lose track of reality, so it's a flaw you learn to live with.
My increasing concern is with the never ending laundry list of ideas that Flayra keeps heaping on the pile. I bought the special edition of this game a year ago when it was released as an alpha, and it is still an alpha today, no matter how UWE or NS2HD try to spin it as a beta. New features are added each day and there appears to be no end in sight. Things like fade blink are constantly being tweaked and reworked when a perfectly functional fade exists in NS1 already and has been tried and tested over time. Onos, exoskeletons, jetpacks, and several alien chambers that are critical to the future gameplay of NS2 have yet to be added, while frustrating changes such as slow on hit make it to release on patch day. I understand that making an amazing game takes time, but UWE is not Valve with a mountain of TF2 hat money, and pretty soon the Spark engine will be outdated. You can add and come up with new features forever, but it's time to bring NS2 into a true beta.
I've stood by UWE and watched this unfold since 2003, so I'm used to this by now. Many of those who still post here are new and not used to a different paradigm of game development, and that's why you're seeing such negative threads.
<!--quoteo(post=1860304:date=Jul 13 2011, 05:53 AM:name=NurEinMensch)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NurEinMensch @ Jul 13 2011, 05:53 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860304"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The truth is the people who dwell on video game forums often happen to be huge cry babies.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
on the contrary, chatting on dozens of different forums for the past 12 or so years, I've lost a lot of emotion. Just today my dog had a small stroke and was walking around me in circles while i was watching the Fifa game and i told her to go limp somewhere else haha.
<!--quoteo(post=1860435:date=Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860435"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No they aren't, EXACTLY what was changed in a patch would reflect the quality of what is in the patch, which often is rather poor. Such as 178 when the fade blink was changed, it didn't say anything about 'and also the game will be unplayable for marines because we gave the fade toggleable invincibility without adding anything to balance it out because we didn't have time to think about that'.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> *sigh* <!--quoteo(post=1860435:date=Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860435"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't mind if those things are the case, but if you're going to release experimental/half finished/rushed features, point out that they are experimental/half finished/rushed in the changelog, like you did for the knockback change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> In this open testing phase of development everything that goes into the game should be considered "experimental and half finished". Until the day when the game is NS2 v1.0 and we release it, everything is subject to change, polish, and removal. Its why we can try out some drastic changes, now, rather then releasing the final game that way. <!--quoteo(post=1860435:date=Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860435"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is also possible you genuinely don't know about any of these issues beforehand, but if that's the case, I really have to question whether doing little to no testing at all is a good approach, because it's producing some serious issues in the patches, and making the open testing far more difficult.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Another possibility is that other people have different opinions from you. Including our playtesters. Not everything is cut and dried, and often there is a lot more thought behind these changes then is obvious from the outside, because we have more information about how the whole game is meant to come together. We have many internal discussions, and some of the changes address aspects we've been trying to deal with, and while the implementation isn't always final or perfect yet by the time we release a patch, it can be a step in the right direction. Its better for us to get quicker large scale feedback, and its better for you to get new versions of the game to try out, and to get some fixes to problems in the game.
There will be some patches that accidentally break the game with new bugs, or some patches that introduce large gameplay issues that may keep people from playing the game. But we patch frequently enough, that if there's a week or 2 where some people in the community are too annoyed by changes to play a particular patch, then so be it. I can understand if every patch we were putting out was causing havok to the game, but you have to admit, that's not the case. For the most part each patch is improving the game, in small increments and sometimes large ones, and this recent patch follows two other pretty epic patches that really moved the game forward.
SewlekThe programmer previously known as SchimmelJoin Date: 2003-05-13Member: 16247Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Gold, Subnautica Developer
this discussion (corys post) is already very old... its always the same, people dont understand that ns2 is beta. oh, and if you want to discuss the definition of "beta": there are plenty of other threads already
let them do their job, im grateful for how everything works here right now. uwe is taking so much community feedback in consideration already, they are working professional on this game and i like the result more and more.
and no, im not a mindless fanboy, i just symphatize with their way of developing a game
<!--quoteo(post=1860459:date=Jul 13 2011, 10:54 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Jul 13 2011, 10:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860459"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I can understand if every patch we were putting out was causing havok to the game, but you have to admit, that's not the case. For the most part each patch is improving the game, in small increments and sometimes large ones, and this recent patch follows two other pretty epic patches that really moved the game forward.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's been a consistent problem with the last three patches, 178 made marines very annoying to play due to fade ovepowering, ok, I can play aliens, I don't mind a change, I didn't like marines much anyway. 179 attempted to fix this but then made a huge chunk of servers completely nonfunctional either due to black screens or the game just losing half its functionality for some reason, ok, I can sort of accept that maybe the guy who changed the server made a huge oversight, it probably won't happen again, I'll wait for the next patch so I can play the game again. 180 fixed that bug but has made incredibly irritating changes to the alien side which makes their commander, and subsequently their entire side, more or less completely useless against concetrated marine aggression, forcing the commander to run between hives and constantly patch infestation holes, and causing players to have to do much the same just to avoid their base collapsing out from under them. Now I am rapidly losing patience. I wouldn't be complaining if it was just one patch, but it has been about two months now and every patch has caused more problems, every improvement is overshadowed by another game breaking bug which makes it impossible to appreciate them. I most certainly can say that it is the case, because it demonstrably IS the case, and it is <i>not</i> good enough.
<!--quoteo(post=1860462:date=Jul 13 2011, 05:08 PM:name=Schimmel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Schimmel @ Jul 13 2011, 05:08 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860462"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->this discussion (corys post) is already very old... its always the same, people dont understand that ns2 is beta. oh, and if you want to discuss the definition of "beta": there are plenty of other threads already
let them do their job, im grateful for how everything works here right now. uwe is taking so much community feedback in consideration already, they are working professional on this game and i like the result more and more.
and no, im not a mindless fanboy, i just symphatize with their way of developing a game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> NS2 is in 'beta' because they needed the funds. Get over it.
<!--quoteo(post=1860217:date=Jul 12 2011, 07:16 PM:name=Squeal_Like_A_Pig)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Squeal_Like_A_Pig @ Jul 12 2011, 07:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860217"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Huh? The patch notes is EXACTLY what was fixed/added for the patch. No misrepresentation. No lying. Patch notes are not going to list bugs, or issues, or balance problems, or people's personal opinions about what they think sucks.
To say we are hyping up these patches is pretty unfair. We aren't trying to pull one over on the community, we honestly are excited to get fixes and changes out there to you guys, and to test some new features out, so yes, we are enthusiastic when we've put a lot of work into a patch and its finished and being put out there for everyone to play.
Yes, something like cysts is problematic as is, but we were happy to finally get them in the game to try out, and are able to get a lot of feedback on them. Our smaller internal playtests are mostly good for finding large bugs and a general indication for how thing are working, but we don't have the time to put hours and hours of playtime into every patch to get the amount of data we really need to tell us how well something is working. This patch had a lot of stuff we were unsure about, but that's why we put it out there, so we could hear what you guys thought, so we could have a clearer understanding of what is working and what isn't. Yes, we are using you guys to help us test this stuff, and sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and if you don't want to be part of that process, thats fine.
And, since we are talking about the patch notes, thats a pretty extensive list of fixes and improvements, that no one talks about, since everyone is so focused on the slow on damage, cysts, and lerk and fade changes. But hey, just as one example, Fades can crouch now, something people have been asking for for a long time in a lot of forum threads. Anyway, just saying there's a lot of good stuff in all the perceived bad stuff in this latest patch, so we have every right to be proud and excited about the work we put in to it. I'm fine with all the complaints, but don't start accusing us of some shady used car salesmen tactics or something.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlinke some I absolutely appreciate your hard work and dedication, I have purchase 10 copies of your game for friends and they all play, whether they can run it smoothly or not just to help. I have had some great games in the last week thanks to 180 and while yes there are things that are sometime annoying I dont worry about them since each patch seems to tweaks them again and either gets it right or gets that much closer.
<!--quoteo(post=1860470:date=Jul 13 2011, 06:45 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 06:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860470"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I bought it because I wanted the game, not because I wanted value for money.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1860435:date=Jul 13 2011, 10:49 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 10:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860435"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No they aren't, EXACTLY what was changed in a patch would reflect the quality of what is in the patch, which often is rather poor. Such as 178 when the fade blink was changed, it didn't say anything about 'and also the game will be unplayable for marines because we gave the fade toggleable invincibility without adding anything to balance it out because we didn't have time to think about that'. Or 179, which claimed to fix the server lag, and said nothing about 'but we didn't test whether the server actually worked afterwards so it might break half of the servers that try to run this build' or 180, which says nothing about the incredibly half finished nature of the cyst mechanic which is the main reason why it's such an annoying thing to play with.
I don't mind if those things are the case, but if you're going to release experimental/half finished/rushed features, point out that they are experimental/half finished/rushed in the changelog, like you did for the knockback change. That way I know you know it needs fixing, if you give no indication of that what exactly am I supposed to do other than assume the bad changes are deliberate? I mean, they're pretty obvious the first time you play a game with any of these patches, so it doesn't make a lot of sense that you wouldn't know about them before you release. As you said you have playtesters, bugs which affect few people or which are only present on high-load servers or which otherwise only show up in large scale tests, those are obviously unavoidable, but simple and glaring errors which you neglect to mention on release? That is a little harder to explain.
I don't actually think it's deliberate deception, although that is certainly a logical conclusion given that lying about the quality of your product is a perfectly normal advertising strategy, I would rather assume it's something like it just didn't occur to you that giving that kind of comprehensive changelog would be appreciated. It is also possible you genuinely don't know about any of these issues beforehand, but if that's the case, I really have to question whether doing little to no testing at all is a good approach, because it's producing some serious issues in the patches, and making the open testing far more difficult. Mass feedback cannot be useful to you if all you're getting is 'this huge issue is annoying', which you yourself said you are getting, there's a reason nobody cares about fade ducking or animation fixes, and it's because you're shipping patches with game breaking issues, it's hard to appreciate small but measurable improvements when what you mostly notice is that the game has acquired some new and fascinating way to infuriate you as you try to play it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mr. Chris, meet my post: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=114165&view=findpost&p=1860405" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=1860405</a>
I'm sure you will recognize what I talk about in it..just saying.
EDIT: In regards to the fade and other things you say nobody cares about..speak for yourself, I personally care a lot about it, and think its great progress.
Last 3 patches have been pretty awesome from where I'm sitting. Before them it would be difficult finding a server with people playing, now it's hard getting into servers as they are often full. Of course there are going to be issues, it's still in development, lots of things are being tried and tested. If you can't deal with that then perhaps you should stop playing until 1.0
<!--quoteo(post=1860470:date=Jul 13 2011, 06:45 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 06:45 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860470"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I bought it because I wanted the game, not because I wanted value for money.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Then I believe you are being a bit impatient, because the game itself hasn't been released yet.
If by "the game" you're talking about the development experience, well, this is it my friend. If it isn't what you expected or wanted, that's an entirely different discussion.
Some minds are too stubborn and dogmatic to have their opinion swayed Cory, no matter how rational the argument is. I'm not so sure it's a good use of your forum browsing time to respond to their melodramatic posts. :P
Guys, this is a beta. It's going to take a while to get the game into shape. I'm not talking weeks here - people need to be patient. If you don't want to be patient, ask for a refund and let the rest of us try and work on the game, playtest it and get to into shape. It really is showing the foundations of something rather special.
Everyone who has pre-ordered is a beta tester. Constructive crit and suggestions/bug-fixes are more helpful than "Make it more like NS1" or "OMG NS1 fade was perfect just do that". This game is NOT NS1. NS1 should be used as reference for NS2, not the bible.
Chris0132 & meb3, I believe you both to be intelligent people. You both buy & play games, I assume you have some kind of understanding of the games industry. At some point in your lives, you will have had games you love and want delayed. Good games take time, and often long delays. Even the best developers delay for sometimes years at a time, to get the balance and features right. Developers always have their best intentions whenever they do something, as they're trying to please their paying audience. Just because they do something 'you' do not like, doesn't mean their decision is bad for the whole audience.
This is a great time for beta testing ideas with the thousands of testers they have, they can try out new and innovative ways of doing things with a small but decent sized group, before the game hits mass-market to see what works. If it doesn't work, it'll get improved, fixed or removed. It's the way it works.
I for one am seeing the game improve in different ways with every patch. I can't wait to see it all done, but I'm prepared to wait, and help get it there.
Chris, if you are getting impatient its your own fault.
Either wait for the finished product(if you think you have to, make a refund and come back later), or test contribute and make valueable feedback.
(This game is under development, if it happens to be broken even for 200 patches[wont happen but still] - so be it, uwe doesnt promise you a perfect game at this stage - you got early access to help them test and go along until the game is finished)
PS: and i think a dev should be happy and enthusiastic about their game, its not their fault you read - "the game is now super balanced" while they say "Added some cool stuff, and changed this and that, made some improvements - check it out!"
With every added feature or experiment comes necessary future maintenance such as bug fixing and balancing. I am a very patient man, but it is concerning to see the hodge podge of features for this game increase and increase. Is slow on hit really necessary when the Onos, the first NS2 lifeform to be revealed to the public, is still not in the game? It isn't even a fun mechanic in the first place.
Comments
Because there was a tsunami of gameplay changes that had a negative influence on the alien gameplay I'm sure some of the posts & topics here were a bit overreacted. I guess people "just want to be heard" and topics like "Marines are OP now" do get allot of attention.
I still enjoy playing the game, I think the new gameplay like the ARC and ns_summit have def contributed to that.
Also I can't believe Hugh doesn't get payed, where do you get all that free time :D?
Some of the decisions are functionality
It takes alot of work to tie in art assets and coding to bring something new into the game.
Once it is in the game then they can adjust the functionality.
If you do not understand the work...that's fine...but for most of us who do...
+UW is doing good work.
+These things come in steps.
Some of the decisions are possibly done to trigger feedback...
We are UW's unofficial test team.
They may do things to trigger feedback from us.
Not to hurt us ...to make the game better.
For instance the problem with DI was it was too hard to kill.
The implementation was to make the kill points focused.
Their first pass COULD have chosen low numbers so it was easy to kill, so that they could then
bump the numbers up gradually to a happy medium.
I am NOT saying they did that I am saying they COULD be doing that.
Like all of you I do not KNOW what they think I can only GUESS.
Finally
When you react in anger (this sucks, you guys suck) you either get
a) ignored
b) anger
c) defense
If you think you have a valid observation...talk like an adult.
You have a better chance of being listened too and if you are not...then it is the other persons' loss.
This is an incredibly valuable skill in survival, practicing it on the internet is difficult, but not without benefit.
PS:
If you want to understand more about how game makers make games...Sirlin is an excellent resource...
<a href="http://www.sirlin.net/article-archive/" target="_blank">http://www.sirlin.net/article-archive/</a>
His articles are well constructed and brief.
Have a nice day.
To say we are hyping up these patches is pretty unfair.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
i love how cory jumped in and gave Chris the "huh?! you crazy son!" reply.. lol... some people, man, i just dont get them..
I don’t know how much the devs pay attention to the forums but here’s an old quote for them. “When you are up to your @ss in alligators, it is difficult to remind yourself that your initial objective was to drain the swamp.â€
I think in order to respond properly to a <strike>server</strike> Patch issue like this, as a player, you have to decide on 1 of 2 things.
1. I don't *really* care what is involved with <strike>running, maintaining and/or fixing a service such as LoL</strike> (okay I will stop using strikeout now to show my adaption of my original post..the rest will just be adjusted)developing, designing and/or fixing a game like NS2, I just want it to work.
2. I want to know exactly why the game is bugged/broken/not what I expected, this includes technical limitations and/or financial limitations + and/or development decisions etc.
<b>Explanation of choice number 1:</b>
This is the most common approach for people, but it is also the most uninformed, although not necessarily unjust. It genuinely is a fair enough wish to want a game you like to be available for you to play, especially if you invested money into it.
The only thing I can say is, please consider that yelling, screaming, making conspiracy theories of whats "really going on", saying the developers are lying, saying you won't play the game anymore and you will drag several people with you - Won't fix the game.
The assumption of nefarious intent of your service/game provider, is at best an uninformed one, at most of the time, plain stupid on your part.
Your service/game provider has every wish and desire, even greater than you, for their service/game to perform well. What do you think makes their money? Their game, reputation, attitude, efficiency and so on.
It is much more helpful for you to assume, off the bat, that your game provider is doing *Every possible thing* that they can, to improve the game you're paying for...if it amuses you, you can even imagine your game provider running around amongst each other, flailing their arms and screaming, and some just running in circles going "whatdowedowhatdowedowhatdowedo" and "ohgodohgodohgodohgodohgod" etc....Because in effect thats whats going on in their heads sometimes. (Cory, I'm looking at you)
There is nothing you can do, that will speed up the process. However I grant you that you have every right to be dissatisfied with a patch and/or the state of the game - Thats how progress is made..well not just..but it certainly adds an element of incentive, especially in the case of NS2, but hopefully you will do it in a more meaningful way after reading this..or not..I leave that up to you.
<b>Explanation of choice number 2</b>
If you genuinely, truly want to know or somehow have an interest in what has caused a game to be bugged beyond the basic "The game isn't fully optimized", and want to argue from a technical standpoint. I think it stands to reason that at the very least you need to gather all the information relevant to making you case, and most importantly: Do so without an agenda in mind.
Really the worst thing you can do, if you want to argue technical stuff, is decide beforehand whats "really" going on and that you're dealing with incompetent people who just want to run off with your money like a shady car salesman (btw Cory, is this 1979 Trans am supposed to smoke like a coal locomotive and make 'splodey sounds?? :|) and doesn't have a care in the world for your enjoyment, well being and the money you have given them - This is an unhelpful attitude and it will only serve to damage your ability to do proper critical thinking, damage your basic trust in people (I know its hard to trust people nowadays, and you should be careful, but there is such a thing as exaggeration), damage the company and damage your reputation in the eyes of your peers who know better.
Now, lets assume you've gathered all the technical information at this point. Suppose you now understand whats going on with the game, and you also understand that Uknown Worlds understands the same thing - What do you do with this information?
Well one of several things..One option is to simply enjoy that you now understand a great deal more about the workings of complicated game development and/or problems. Knowing something after having put the work into understanding it, is a great feeling I can tell you.
Another option is to perhaps educate other people about it? Try to appeal to their reason and explain why they should care.
Another option to go along with any of the above is to make a reasonable, well thought out argument in respects to what you know and your experience, as to why perhaps it shouldn't take this long given perfect conditions..so clearly there is something at play here that is delaying the solution, and you think it'd be fair if Unknown Worlds informed you about what that is. A request I'm very convinced that they'd love to answer considering how forthcoming they have been in other threads about information and answers.
<b>Conclusion</b>
The point is, just yelling or complaining without real content or with an agenda in mind, you will only get ignored because it is rather insulting and sometimes infuriating to actual real people running around on the other side, that all you have to say to them, is that they suck and don't know what the hell they're doing, and they deserve to fail.
What answer do you want? Really? Truly? "Yes we're absolutely incompetent oh and by the way, that car will fall apart after 100 miles mwahahahahah" ? Really?
Again, I leave the choices up to you, but I still hope you consider your choices with a bit more care, because the only way you're going to get through to a company, is if you stand out from the crowd and also have a good case.
And in case you were wondering, no, whining isn't a good case.
Good day to you *tips hat*
*end quote*
At least this is how I see it ^_^
No they aren't, EXACTLY what was changed in a patch would reflect the quality of what is in the patch, which often is rather poor. Such as 178 when the fade blink was changed, it didn't say anything about 'and also the game will be unplayable for marines because we gave the fade toggleable invincibility without adding anything to balance it out because we didn't have time to think about that'. Or 179, which claimed to fix the server lag, and said nothing about 'but we didn't test whether the server actually worked afterwards so it might break half of the servers that try to run this build' or 180, which says nothing about the incredibly half finished nature of the cyst mechanic which is the main reason why it's such an annoying thing to play with.
I don't mind if those things are the case, but if you're going to release experimental/half finished/rushed features, point out that they are experimental/half finished/rushed in the changelog, like you did for the knockback change. That way I know you know it needs fixing, if you give no indication of that what exactly am I supposed to do other than assume the bad changes are deliberate? I mean, they're pretty obvious the first time you play a game with any of these patches, so it doesn't make a lot of sense that you wouldn't know about them before you release. As you said you have playtesters, bugs which affect few people or which are only present on high-load servers or which otherwise only show up in large scale tests, those are obviously unavoidable, but simple and glaring errors which you neglect to mention on release? That is a little harder to explain.
I don't actually think it's deliberate deception, although that is certainly a logical conclusion given that lying about the quality of your product is a perfectly normal advertising strategy, I would rather assume it's something like it just didn't occur to you that giving that kind of comprehensive changelog would be appreciated. It is also possible you genuinely don't know about any of these issues beforehand, but if that's the case, I really have to question whether doing little to no testing at all is a good approach, because it's producing some serious issues in the patches, and making the open testing far more difficult. Mass feedback cannot be useful to you if all you're getting is 'this huge issue is annoying', which you yourself said you are getting, there's a reason nobody cares about fade ducking or animation fixes, and it's because you're shipping patches with game breaking issues, it's hard to appreciate small but measurable improvements when what you mostly notice is that the game has acquired some new and fascinating way to infuriate you as you try to play it.
I don't mind if those things are the case, but if you're going to release experimental/half finished/rushed features, point out that they are experimental/half finished/rushed in the changelog, like you did for the knockback change. That way I know you know it needs fixing, if you give no indication of that what exactly am I supposed to do other than assume the bad changes are deliberate? I mean, they're pretty obvious the first time you play a game with any of these patches, so it doesn't make a lot of sense that you wouldn't know about them before you release. As you said you have playtesters, bugs which affect few people or which are only present on high-load servers or which otherwise only show up in large scale tests, those are obviously unavoidable, but simple and glaring errors which you neglect to mention on release? That is a little harder to explain.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You do realize that those things you say that are not said are implied by the term beta? and testing? seriously. The issues you mention didn't necesseraly have to be known before the release, and even if they where, its part of the testing. Really, that is what beta testing is all about.
if you are not happy to beta test, feel free to wait for the final release, until then, expect things to break, specially if new features are involved.
if you are not happy to beta test, feel free to wait for the final release, until then, expect things to break, specially if new features are involved.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It is difficult to beta test when every patch has massive and glaring issues which obscure any benefit of large scale testing. Large scale testing is useful to find things which are otherwise hard to find, to have lots of people looking for tiny bugs that you might not otherwise find, if the only thing anyone is going to care about is something you could find in half an hour with a group of proper playtesters, you're wasting your open beta.
I know from experience that there is no point releasing a level for public testing if it isn't pretty well balanced and has as many of the exploits fixed as possible, because otherwise what happens is people play it once, hate it, complain about the same issue everyone else is complaining about, and never touch it again. On the other hand if you release it and it works pretty well, people point out the small and hard to find issues to you, you fix, them, and you end up with a largely bug-free level at the end that people can enjoy playing, and will be inclined to enjoy because they haven't had a bad experience with it. It's beneficial for you as the developer to get useful feedback, and it's beneficial for the players because they get a better product.
Sometimes it isn't avoidable, sometimes you genuinely do need to just test it and see what happens, but if you're doing that, tell people first that you know it's going to be crap, but you need the information to make it better. Promise them outright that if it doesn't work you'll change it, and if you do that by and large, they will be more forgiving than if you don't.
While this might be true, it doesn't change the fact that the changelog is correct, and while some issues are big (even though some actually are not, and people think they are), they are not always known. Perhaps because the features was introduced at the end of a internal cycle, or for some othe reason.
edit: just saw that you edited your post.
Well, UWE could release fewer patches, lets say every month or two. But i somehow doubt that people would be happy. Patches with big issues tend to have a more or less quick follow up patch, so the "bad" patches are usually not around for very long.
Then like I said, you should do more internal testing, even if it means delaying the patch for a week, longer development times are far better than blowing your chance, believe me.
<!--quoteo(post=1860441:date=Jul 13 2011, 10:01 PM:name=Asraniel)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Asraniel @ Jul 13 2011, 10:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860441"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Well, UWE could release fewer patches, lets say every month or two. But i somehow doubt that people would be happy. Patches with big issues tend to have a more or less quick follow up patch, so the "bad" patches are usually not around for very long.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You need to do both, if you have issues, you need to fix them before release, if you still have issues afterwards, you need to patch them out immediately.
It's annoying, very annoying, but if you don't people sour on the idea very quickly. I do actually like NS2, when it works you can see the improvements over NS1, and I quite liked NS1 when it was new. But I cannot help but worry that if this patch trend keeps up, it's going to end up a lot less popular than it could be.
-Digz<!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
My increasing concern is with the never ending laundry list of ideas that Flayra keeps heaping on the pile. I bought the special edition of this game a year ago when it was released as an alpha, and it is still an alpha today, no matter how UWE or NS2HD try to spin it as a beta. New features are added each day and there appears to be no end in sight. Things like fade blink are constantly being tweaked and reworked when a perfectly functional fade exists in NS1 already and has been tried and tested over time. Onos, exoskeletons, jetpacks, and several alien chambers that are critical to the future gameplay of NS2 have yet to be added, while frustrating changes such as slow on hit make it to release on patch day. I understand that making an amazing game takes time, but UWE is not Valve with a mountain of TF2 hat money, and pretty soon the Spark engine will be outdated. You can add and come up with new features forever, but it's time to bring NS2 into a true beta.
I've stood by UWE and watched this unfold since 2003, so I'm used to this by now. Many of those who still post here are new and not used to a different paradigm of game development, and that's why you're seeing such negative threads.
on the contrary, chatting on dozens of different forums for the past 12 or so years, I've lost a lot of emotion. Just today my dog had a small stroke and was walking around me in circles while i was watching the Fifa game and i told her to go limp somewhere else haha.
*sigh*
<!--quoteo(post=1860435:date=Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860435"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I don't mind if those things are the case, but if you're going to release experimental/half finished/rushed features, point out that they are experimental/half finished/rushed in the changelog, like you did for the knockback change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
In this open testing phase of development everything that goes into the game should be considered "experimental and half finished". Until the day when the game is NS2 v1.0 and we release it, everything is subject to change, polish, and removal. Its why we can try out some drastic changes, now, rather then releasing the final game that way.
<!--quoteo(post=1860435:date=Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM:name=Chris0132)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Chris0132 @ Jul 13 2011, 08:49 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1860435"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It is also possible you genuinely don't know about any of these issues beforehand, but if that's the case, I really have to question whether doing little to no testing at all is a good approach, because it's producing some serious issues in the patches, and making the open testing far more difficult.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Another possibility is that other people have different opinions from you. Including our playtesters. Not everything is cut and dried, and often there is a lot more thought behind these changes then is obvious from the outside, because we have more information about how the whole game is meant to come together. We have many internal discussions, and some of the changes address aspects we've been trying to deal with, and while the implementation isn't always final or perfect yet by the time we release a patch, it can be a step in the right direction. Its better for us to get quicker large scale feedback, and its better for you to get new versions of the game to try out, and to get some fixes to problems in the game.
There will be some patches that accidentally break the game with new bugs, or some patches that introduce large gameplay issues that may keep people from playing the game. But we patch frequently enough, that if there's a week or 2 where some people in the community are too annoyed by changes to play a particular patch, then so be it. I can understand if every patch we were putting out was causing havok to the game, but you have to admit, that's not the case. For the most part each patch is improving the game, in small increments and sometimes large ones, and this recent patch follows two other pretty epic patches that really moved the game forward.
--Cory
oh, and if you want to discuss the definition of "beta": there are plenty of other threads already
let them do their job, im grateful for how everything works here right now. uwe is taking so much community
feedback in consideration already, they are working professional on this game and i like the result
more and more.
and no, im not a mindless fanboy, i just symphatize with their way of developing a game
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
It's been a consistent problem with the last three patches, 178 made marines very annoying to play due to fade ovepowering, ok, I can play aliens, I don't mind a change, I didn't like marines much anyway. 179 attempted to fix this but then made a huge chunk of servers completely nonfunctional either due to black screens or the game just losing half its functionality for some reason, ok, I can sort of accept that maybe the guy who changed the server made a huge oversight, it probably won't happen again, I'll wait for the next patch so I can play the game again. 180 fixed that bug but has made incredibly irritating changes to the alien side which makes their commander, and subsequently their entire side, more or less completely useless against concetrated marine aggression, forcing the commander to run between hives and constantly patch infestation holes, and causing players to have to do much the same just to avoid their base collapsing out from under them. Now I am rapidly losing patience. I wouldn't be complaining if it was just one patch, but it has been about two months now and every patch has caused more problems, every improvement is overshadowed by another game breaking bug which makes it impossible to appreciate them. I most certainly can say that it is the case, because it demonstrably IS the case, and it is <i>not</i> good enough.
oh, and if you want to discuss the definition of "beta": there are plenty of other threads already
let them do their job, im grateful for how everything works here right now. uwe is taking so much community
feedback in consideration already, they are working professional on this game and i like the result
more and more.
and no, im not a mindless fanboy, i just symphatize with their way of developing a game<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
NS2 is in 'beta' because they needed the funds. Get over it.
To say we are hyping up these patches is pretty unfair. We aren't trying to pull one over on the community, we honestly are excited to get fixes and changes out there to you guys, and to test some new features out, so yes, we are enthusiastic when we've put a lot of work into a patch and its finished and being put out there for everyone to play.
Yes, something like cysts is problematic as is, but we were happy to finally get them in the game to try out, and are able to get a lot of feedback on them. Our smaller internal playtests are mostly good for finding large bugs and a general indication for how thing are working, but we don't have the time to put hours and hours of playtime into every patch to get the amount of data we really need to tell us how well something is working. This patch had a lot of stuff we were unsure about, but that's why we put it out there, so we could hear what you guys thought, so we could have a clearer understanding of what is working and what isn't. Yes, we are using you guys to help us test this stuff, and sometimes things have to get worse before they get better, and if you don't want to be part of that process, thats fine.
And, since we are talking about the patch notes, thats a pretty extensive list of fixes and improvements, that no one talks about, since everyone is so focused on the slow on damage, cysts, and lerk and fade changes. But hey, just as one example, Fades can crouch now, something people have been asking for for a long time in a lot of forum threads. Anyway, just saying there's a lot of good stuff in all the perceived bad stuff in this latest patch, so we have every right to be proud and excited about the work we put in to it. I'm fine with all the complaints, but don't start accusing us of some shady used car salesmen tactics or something.
--Cory<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Unlinke some I absolutely appreciate your hard work and dedication, I have purchase 10 copies of your game for friends and they all play, whether they can run it smoothly or not just to help. I have had some great games in the last week thanks to 180 and while yes there are things that are sometime annoying I dont worry about them since each patch seems to tweaks them again and either gets it right or gets that much closer.
You are insufferable.
I don't mind if those things are the case, but if you're going to release experimental/half finished/rushed features, point out that they are experimental/half finished/rushed in the changelog, like you did for the knockback change. That way I know you know it needs fixing, if you give no indication of that what exactly am I supposed to do other than assume the bad changes are deliberate? I mean, they're pretty obvious the first time you play a game with any of these patches, so it doesn't make a lot of sense that you wouldn't know about them before you release. As you said you have playtesters, bugs which affect few people or which are only present on high-load servers or which otherwise only show up in large scale tests, those are obviously unavoidable, but simple and glaring errors which you neglect to mention on release? That is a little harder to explain.
I don't actually think it's deliberate deception, although that is certainly a logical conclusion given that lying about the quality of your product is a perfectly normal advertising strategy, I would rather assume it's something like it just didn't occur to you that giving that kind of comprehensive changelog would be appreciated. It is also possible you genuinely don't know about any of these issues beforehand, but if that's the case, I really have to question whether doing little to no testing at all is a good approach, because it's producing some serious issues in the patches, and making the open testing far more difficult. Mass feedback cannot be useful to you if all you're getting is 'this huge issue is annoying', which you yourself said you are getting, there's a reason nobody cares about fade ducking or animation fixes, and it's because you're shipping patches with game breaking issues, it's hard to appreciate small but measurable improvements when what you mostly notice is that the game has acquired some new and fascinating way to infuriate you as you try to play it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Mr. Chris, meet my post: <a href="http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/index.php?showtopic=114165&view=findpost&p=1860405" target="_blank">http://www.unknownworlds.com/ns2/forums/in...t&p=1860405</a>
I'm sure you will recognize what I talk about in it..just saying.
EDIT: In regards to the fade and other things you say nobody cares about..speak for yourself, I personally care a lot about it, and think its great progress.
Then I believe you are being a bit impatient, because the game itself hasn't been released yet.
If by "the game" you're talking about the development experience, well, this is it my friend. If it isn't what you expected or wanted, that's an entirely different discussion.
Everyone who has pre-ordered is a beta tester. Constructive crit and suggestions/bug-fixes are more helpful than "Make it more like NS1" or "OMG NS1 fade was perfect just do that". This game is NOT NS1. NS1 should be used as reference for NS2, not the bible.
Chris0132 & meb3, I believe you both to be intelligent people. You both buy & play games, I assume you have some kind of understanding of the games industry. At some point in your lives, you will have had games you love and want delayed. Good games take time, and often long delays. Even the best developers delay for sometimes years at a time, to get the balance and features right. Developers always have their best intentions whenever they do something, as they're trying to please their paying audience. Just because they do something 'you' do not like, doesn't mean their decision is bad for the whole audience.
This is a great time for beta testing ideas with the thousands of testers they have, they can try out new and innovative ways of doing things with a small but decent sized group, before the game hits mass-market to see what works. If it doesn't work, it'll get improved, fixed or removed. It's the way it works.
I for one am seeing the game improve in different ways with every patch. I can't wait to see it all done, but I'm prepared to wait, and help get it there.
Either wait for the finished product(if you think you have to, make a refund and come back later), or test contribute and make valueable feedback.
(This game is under development, if it happens to be broken even for 200 patches[wont happen but still] - so be it, uwe doesnt promise you a perfect game at this stage - you got early access to help them test and go along until the game is finished)
PS: and i think a dev should be happy and enthusiastic about their game, its not their fault you read - "the game is now super balanced" while they say "Added some cool stuff, and changed this and that, made some improvements - check it out!"