personally i LOVE the real time part of it, it seperates it from the standard ol' TURN based game...
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Originally posted by Cadorna
Thanks State Machine.
Well, maybe it's just me, but I'm not appreciating the tendency in gaming companies to mistake the term "release" for the begin of public beta testing. Issues like the balancing of forces must at least be tried to solve BEFORE release, during the beta.
Since you were a tester, didn't you guys talk about this at all?
I agree, HoI will probably improve over the next months, but unlike EU, I think it's almost unplayable as of now.
Think UT with bots that got stuck in every corner, could not turn left, could use no weapons but the default weapon, would only shoot occasionly and randomly, thereby hitting the player only on VERY rare occasions, could not pick up ammo or healh packs, let alone know they're even in the game, could not coordinate with each other in non-deathmatch, .........
The initial release of UT (or Q3 if you wish) had its flaws, granted, but in this state it would not have been released. UT 1.0 was playable. EU1.0 (on my cd was a higher version already, though)was quite bad, but playable. HoI .... the release version is probably 0.32b or something.
Cadorna
It just doesn't work like that. We had the "Great Beta Tester Revolt" in EU2 when it went Gold and all the arguments you make were rehearsed and deployed for that battle. Bottom line is that the HoI engine is actually much more stable than EU2.
The balance and AI issues you describe are real - but are being worked on. Should HoI have been released before Xmas? My opinion is yes. If we had waited until the equivalent of the EU2 1.05 version for HoI then it wouldn't have been released until March (my guess). Many people would rather have the game now than a "final" version 3-6 months later.
What I will point to is Paradox's proven track record of continuing to develop (not just patch) it's games after release. Compare EU 1.01 and 1.05 (or even 1.06 if you are a public beta) and you'll see what I mean.
The game is huge, compromises have to be made and finally a group of 20-30 active betas cannot catch or test everything. The other point to make is that the historical vs. gameplay discussion we had in EU2 is even more pertinent here. Do we want a WW2 simulation or a WW2 game. As an example - some of the resource placements were deliberately changed to ahistorical levels to enable some of the larger minors (and Italy!) to have a game at all. This is ahistorical but necessary to allow the game to proceed. The betas had a solution for the issues (Huzics' idea) but the solution could not be implemented in early patches and probably will have to wait for a HoI 2 if it is ever made.
I'm sorry if this does not cheer you up - all I can say is that Johan is still cranking out beta patches ad we're still working hard to make the game better.
Derek
HoI beta tester (Gamebalance *ducks to avoid crockery and rotten tomatoes thrown by GD forum
*)
Im still amazed how fickle loyality is........and how short people's memories are. EU & EU2 were far from complete when released, but through hard work and listening to 'US' the players, Paradox gave us a couple of quality games!
Just be patient guys!!! as Derek says "they have a proven track record" for delivering what we, the player's want.
Just have more faith and together we can make this game a classic!
Amen
Just be patient guys!!! as Derek says "they have a proven track record" for delivering what we, the player's want.
Just have more faith and together we can make this game a classic!
Amen
True enough STGeorge, however, to make game-related comparsions: In EU we had a peasant that needed to be told how to wield a spear. In HoI we have the same peasant, but this time he needs to be told how to command tank divisions and properly manufacture nuclear reactors. Quite a task, IMHO.
I think priority should be put to improving AI - that's the single most important issue that is eating gameplay enjoyment. Make it DAMN hard. Make Soviet Union extremely hard to beat as Germans etc. Make it cheat or something but the main point is that you make it hard as hell
Errr ... wasn't the peasant with a spear in Warcraft? Or maybe Civ?
If you read the early threads about EU2 you'll see all the same issues discussed and beaten to death: the game was a mess when it came out, but it was fixed; there were angry posters who had expected some other kind of game; there were arguments and pink cards about CTDs, micromanagement, what "strategy" means, etc etc.
Owl, if you take a peek at my join-date, you'll realize that I'm actually around longer than you are. I've experienced the issues with EU and EU2 firsthand, but IMHO they were nowhere as critical or as hard to fix as HoI's problems. And I'm pretty sure you understood the "peasant" reference quite well...
Cadorna,
I don't see that the problems are any harder to fix - but time will tell. I'm no programmer.
Meanwhile, the game IS playable - it may not do everything you want, yet, but that's another matter. People are playing it, and there is a wide divergence of views as to whether it's enjoyable or boring, challenging or piss-easy. If it's annoying you, go do some Christmas shopping and come back to it when the next patch is out.
And I'm still baffled by the peasant , but I guess you mean the AI (which is of course nothing like a peasant - any peasant is capable of working things out for himself, while the ai is nothing but a set of binary code and yes/no decisions). The AI can be taught. The tech tree is there for the AI to read and the organisation of units isn't fundamentally different just because they are now representing armoured divisions or aircraft.
I don't see that the problems are any harder to fix - but time will tell. I'm no programmer.
Meanwhile, the game IS playable - it may not do everything you want, yet, but that's another matter. People are playing it, and there is a wide divergence of views as to whether it's enjoyable or boring, challenging or piss-easy. If it's annoying you, go do some Christmas shopping and come back to it when the next patch is out.
And I'm still baffled by the peasant
, but I guess you mean the AI (which is of course nothing like a peasant - any peasant is capable of working things out for himself, while the ai is nothing but a set of binary code and yes/no decisions). The AI can be taught. The tech tree is there for the AI to read and the organisation of units isn't fundamentally different just because they are now representing armoured divisions or aircraft.
Good call
By the way, Uglyduck - your instinct to let this thread run was absolutely right. It's not just another teenage flame war (touch wood!), there are some very good points.
By the way, Uglyduck - your instinct to let this thread run was absolutely right. It's not just another teenage flame war (touch wood!), there are some very good points.
Originally posted by Owl
Errr ... wasn't the peasant with a spear in Warcraft? Or maybe Civ?
Sorry boys, the peasant with the spear comes from Heroes 1/2, No matter what u say!
Originally posted by Derek Pullem
All suggestions gratefully accepted
Basically, I have but one, for which it's a bit late now.
I also assume numerous people have suggested this, but Paradox refused to implement it: AI scripts.
Actual files, that can be modified by the users.
With IF-THEN-ELSE conditions, similar to the EUish event-files, but even more complex.
Then one could make AIs on its own, like it happened in, say the AoE community.
IF (War(Germany,France)) AND (DivisionCount()<x THEN
BuildAHelluvaLotOfTroops()
END IF
Why hasn't been introduced as early as with EU2 goes beyond me, but I assume Paradox refused to do it for some reason or the other. A shame, since this could further improve EU and would have made the whole AI discussion in HoI pointless.
Like in "We're incapable of doing it, so let the fans do it themselves instead". The IGC in EU, the EEP in EU2, it's been proven that the community is willing to do it's part in making Paradox' games great. So why not open up the AI for mods, too?
In regards to games being released to early being the publishers fault I agree completely.
Just remember Paradox has the same publishers as WW2OL does. And Im sure some of you remember how that game was on release.
SF CEO in response to that debacle stated 'We were quite prepared to wait longer' What he didn't state was that CRS (the devs) were out of money and that SF wasnt about to give them anymore.
Sorry, but Im not giving Strategy First any free rides.
Just remember Paradox has the same publishers as WW2OL does. And Im sure some of you remember how that game was on release.
SF CEO in response to that debacle stated 'We were quite prepared to wait longer' What he didn't state was that CRS (the devs) were out of money and that SF wasnt about to give them anymore.
Sorry, but Im not giving Strategy First any free rides.
I dont have the game yet, but I would like to add just a couple of thoughts...
First off, I agree that it is very frustrating to purchase an "incomplete" game from a company, especially with your hard earned money and enthusiam paying the price.
Second, I think we should take into account Ugly and State's earlier comments regarding beta testing and release dates. Those are enlightening not by what they said, but of what they didnt say!!! Come on people, read between the lines!!!
The game was released by the publishers early, in time for the U.S. turkey day shopping frenzy and the pre-Christmas world shopping frenzy. The fact that the patch was released before the game indicates to me that the developers admitted that they have released an incomplete product. (Although one can argue whether software is every truly "complete.") However in this case it appears that the HOI was released prior to the publishers drop dead delivery date of late November, but before the time trulyt needed by the developers to consider it a "finished" product.
Now, this is where everyone has a choice...
We can sit around bitchin about what a poor product HOI is and how dissappointed it didnt meet our probably way too inflated expectations
.....or....
We can now acknowledge the fact that we are now part of the "public beta team." Of course no one wants to have to pay to be part of the beta team, but lets face the facts- you are if you buy this game.
SO my question is why is this necessaryily a bad thing?
When HOI was out in beta testing, everyone who wasnt a beta tester was screaming for more screenies and more AARs. Everyone was crying that they werent a beta.
Well now you have your opportunity!!!
DONT PISS IT AWAY PEOPLE!!
You have an opportunity to voice your concerns and help "mold" this game with what you want to see in it. Granted not everything you dream of will be in it, but by taking an active and mature part, you can help make HOI a genre defining game.
There are many intelligent people who post here with wonderful ideas. Of course Paradox is gonna listen to us cause we bought the game, but also because some suggestions are just plain good.
As they say, many "brains" make light work, so I hope to consider myself (when the game finally arrives!!!) to be a contributer to the process of making a really good game.
First off, I agree that it is very frustrating to purchase an "incomplete" game from a company, especially with your hard earned money and enthusiam paying the price.
Second, I think we should take into account Ugly and State's earlier comments regarding beta testing and release dates. Those are enlightening not by what they said, but of what they didnt say!!! Come on people, read between the lines!!!
The game was released by the publishers early, in time for the U.S. turkey day shopping frenzy and the pre-Christmas world shopping frenzy. The fact that the patch was released before the game indicates to me that the developers admitted that they have released an incomplete product. (Although one can argue whether software is every truly "complete.") However in this case it appears that the HOI was released prior to the publishers drop dead delivery date of late November, but before the time trulyt needed by the developers to consider it a "finished" product.
Now, this is where everyone has a choice...
We can sit around bitchin about what a poor product HOI is and how dissappointed it didnt meet our probably way too inflated expectations
.....or....
We can now acknowledge the fact that we are now part of the "public beta team." Of course no one wants to have to pay to be part of the beta team, but lets face the facts- you are if you buy this game.
SO my question is why is this necessaryily a bad thing?
When HOI was out in beta testing, everyone who wasnt a beta tester was screaming for more screenies and more AARs. Everyone was crying that they werent a beta.
Well now you have your opportunity!!!
DONT PISS IT AWAY PEOPLE!!
You have an opportunity to voice your concerns and help "mold" this game with what you want to see in it. Granted not everything you dream of will be in it, but by taking an active and mature part, you can help make HOI a genre defining game.
There are many intelligent people who post here with wonderful ideas. Of course Paradox is gonna listen to us cause we bought the game, but also because some suggestions are just plain good.
As they say, many "brains" make light work, so I hope to consider myself (when the game finally arrives!!!) to be a contributer to the process of making a really good game.
Life is hard as a betazoid . . .
You get all the crap and few of the perks.
***** GRIPE WARNING - LUSKAN ABOUT TO BITCH ******
I've done it a few times and have seen a fair bit of betazoid bashing on these boards so far and I've only been around a week!
*Background violins, sad music starts - maybe some Bruckner*
I was part of the beta test team for both Kohan (Immortal Sovreigns and Ahriman's Gift) - they were timegate studios games published by strategy first, and both were released too early (in spite of getting put back a few times).
For one game I beta tested there was a new test plan about every 8 hours for 8 weeks - basically an endless list of balance issues and bugs that needed to be reproduced (I spent about 40 hours of my life trying to reproduce reported bugs and in most cases I just couldn't get them to "work"). It can be really soul destroying - especially when the release date is put back and the "final" test plan gets revised a week later and restarted.
After 8 weeks of that particular nightmare I had reached 0% fun, decided it was way too time consuming even for the laziest of uni students (me), and worst of all . . . I knew so much about the scripts and balance issues/exploits (especially to do with AI) in the game that I have had no fun playing the final version of it ever again.
I never beta tested again *tears/sob/sniffle*
Morale of my story: Beta testers are heros who deserve praise, thanks, and trust. To my mind those who pick on beta testers are just uninformed.
You get all the crap and few of the perks.
***** GRIPE WARNING - LUSKAN ABOUT TO BITCH ******
I've done it a few times and have seen a fair bit of betazoid bashing on these boards so far and I've only been around a week!
*Background violins, sad music starts - maybe some Bruckner*
I was part of the beta test team for both Kohan (Immortal Sovreigns and Ahriman's Gift) - they were timegate studios games published by strategy first, and both were released too early (in spite of getting put back a few times).
For one game I beta tested there was a new test plan about every 8 hours for 8 weeks - basically an endless list of balance issues and bugs that needed to be reproduced (I spent about 40 hours of my life trying to reproduce reported bugs and in most cases I just couldn't get them to "work"). It can be really soul destroying - especially when the release date is put back and the "final" test plan gets revised a week later and restarted.
After 8 weeks of that particular nightmare I had reached 0% fun, decided it was way too time consuming even for the laziest of uni students (me), and worst of all . . . I knew so much about the scripts and balance issues/exploits (especially to do with AI) in the game that I have had no fun playing the final version of it ever again.
I never beta tested again *tears/sob/sniffle*
Morale of my story: Beta testers are heros who deserve praise, thanks, and trust. To my mind those who pick on beta testers are just uninformed.
Re: Life is hard as a betazoid . . .
Boo hoo! Now go back to playing UV.
Originally posted by Luskan
You get all the crap and few of the perks.
***** GRIPE WARNING - LUSKAN ABOUT TO BITCH ******
I've done it a few times and have seen a fair bit of betazoid bashing on these boards so far and I've only been around a week!
*Background violins, sad music starts - maybe some Bruckner*
I was part of the beta test team for both Kohan (Immortal Sovreigns and Ahriman's Gift) - they were timegate studios games published by strategy first, and both were released too early (in spite of getting put back a few times).
For one game I beta tested there was a new test plan about every 8 hours for 8 weeks - basically an endless list of balance issues and bugs that needed to be reproduced (I spent about 40 hours of my life trying to reproduce reported bugs and in most cases I just couldn't get them to "work"). It can be really soul destroying - especially when the release date is put back and the "final" test plan gets revised a week later and restarted.
After 8 weeks of that particular nightmare I had reached 0% fun, decided it was way too time consuming even for the laziest of uni students (me), and worst of all . . . I knew so much about the scripts and balance issues/exploits (especially to do with AI) in the game that I have had no fun playing the final version of it ever again.
I never beta tested again *tears/sob/sniffle*
Morale of my story: Beta testers are heros who deserve praise, thanks, and trust. To my mind those who pick on beta testers are just uninformed.
Boo hoo! Now go back to playing UV.
Beta testing sucks.
Its a joy killer for every game I've beta tested.
Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful to everyone, in particular the dev team, if we could figure out where the wheels fell off with respect to the AI.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I assume the beta testers would have caught things like 9 out of 10 games resulting in general war including the US 3 years earlier than happened, like Italy overrunning East Africa, like AI failing to build ground units or prioritizing non-ground units, like practically zero CW/US invasions, like inane AI air unit behavior. I do assume all that would have been noticed from the get go.
So, my question is, what happened here? What got changed and when did it get changed? Was there a version change that got snuck in under the beta nose? How did that happen? Did some files get altered in the localization process? Do the NA and Scand versions play out the same?
The general public doesn't need to know all the answers to these questions, but it might not be a bad idea to find out where the process got bent and refactor the next dev cycle so it don't happen again.
As for myself, I'm real curious because, frankly, this is the last EU engine product I will buy unless I get some answers or satisfaction. Meantime, I'll do what I can to support the patch process because I really want this game to work.
Its a joy killer for every game I've beta tested.
Nevertheless, I think it would be helpful to everyone, in particular the dev team, if we could figure out where the wheels fell off with respect to the AI.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, I assume the beta testers would have caught things like 9 out of 10 games resulting in general war including the US 3 years earlier than happened, like Italy overrunning East Africa, like AI failing to build ground units or prioritizing non-ground units, like practically zero CW/US invasions, like inane AI air unit behavior. I do assume all that would have been noticed from the get go.
So, my question is, what happened here? What got changed and when did it get changed? Was there a version change that got snuck in under the beta nose? How did that happen? Did some files get altered in the localization process? Do the NA and Scand versions play out the same?
The general public doesn't need to know all the answers to these questions, but it might not be a bad idea to find out where the process got bent and refactor the next dev cycle so it don't happen again.
As for myself, I'm real curious because, frankly, this is the last EU engine product I will buy unless I get some answers or satisfaction. Meantime, I'll do what I can to support the patch process because I really want this game to work.
Willard, the reason that there's a distinction between private and public beta is that the further a game's development has progressed, the harder it gets to actually implement new stuff.
Because in internal beta you can just exchange the main.res file of 200mb size, or the entire game for that matter, but once the game's out you can only do cosmetics.
That's why there can be no drastic redesigns at this point. You can argue that the AI can be fixed, but, come on, it's currently THAT broken that I fear it may be beyond repair, i.e. patching.
I HOPE that Paradox will prove me wrong, though.
Because in internal beta you can just exchange the main.res file of 200mb size, or the entire game for that matter, but once the game's out you can only do cosmetics.
That's why there can be no drastic redesigns at this point. You can argue that the AI can be fixed, but, come on, it's currently THAT broken that I fear it may be beyond repair, i.e. patching.
I HOPE that Paradox will prove me wrong, though.
Sometimes the problem is that us betas don't remember which patches are on general release. There have been five beta patches since 1.01, all of which were addressing serious issues like the onces you described.
Yes these issues were noticed earlier but Paradox do not have unlimited Johan resources (BTW he also released a beta 1.06 for EU2).
At some point only relying on beta testing is not efficient. If you want the games that Paradox eventually deliver (EU1 1.10, EU2 1.05/6) then the public have to have an input. Judging when a game is good enough to satisfy the majority of the public and not too raw that it turns off a whole host of potential purchasers is between the distributors and Paradox.
A good example is minor power war mongering. It was picked up in beta but it didn't have a high priority because not many people would want to play the minors. Well that blew out of the window as soon as the public got their hands on the game. Whereas people accepted that minor nations could win in EU2 and this was down to "good play" many did not accept the fact that Argentina could take over South America or that Italy could win a desert war. It seems to me that compared to EU2 the majority of posters want a much more deterministic game for HoI. This can be done but it wasn't (IMHO) the starting premise for the 1936 campaign. If you want a more deterministic game, start in 1939
Things are being changed - the public response from the forums is essential for this BUT there won't be a blow by blow account of each beta patch screw up or failed idea because it's not productive
Yes these issues were noticed earlier but Paradox do not have unlimited Johan resources (BTW he also released a beta 1.06 for EU2).
At some point only relying on beta testing is not efficient. If you want the games that Paradox eventually deliver (EU1 1.10, EU2 1.05/6) then the public have to have an input. Judging when a game is good enough to satisfy the majority of the public and not too raw that it turns off a whole host of potential purchasers is between the distributors and Paradox.
A good example is minor power war mongering. It was picked up in beta but it didn't have a high priority because not many people would want to play the minors. Well that blew out of the window as soon as the public got their hands on the game. Whereas people accepted that minor nations could win in EU2 and this was down to "good play" many did not accept the fact that Argentina could take over South America or that Italy could win a desert war. It seems to me that compared to EU2 the majority of posters want a much more deterministic game for HoI. This can be done but it wasn't (IMHO) the starting premise for the 1936 campaign. If you want a more deterministic game, start in 1939
Things are being changed - the public response from the forums is essential for this BUT there won't be a blow by blow account of each beta patch screw up or failed idea because it's not productive