• Please make sure you are familiar with the forum rules. You can find them here: https://forums.tripwireinteractive.com/index.php?threads/forum-rules.2334636/

Frustrated by the lack of content and patches

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Status
Not open for further replies.
Sort by date Sort by votes
#82
poosh said:
You can test particle effects and sounds without the gun itself.
Click to expand...

No. You can't.
Say you've got a guy doing audio by the hour. He gets paid to create an interpretation of what he thinks an object that doesn't exist should sound like. Then you pay him again to rework/redo the same job once this object is actually done. You're paying him double. You can capture the sounds/acquire sources but any kind of editing or integration is a waste of time until there's actually something that uses them.
 
Upvote 0
#83
DrCactus said:
Starbound uses an optional unstable branch you can opt in to. Would this work for KF2?

It would certainly quiet down some of the players who are getting impatient. They can't really complain about unstable content, since if they want a stable game, just opt out and play the main game.

It would also allow players to give their feedback faster on certain aspects of the game. It didn't take very long for the general consensus to find out that Zerker is lackluster atm, but it took quite a long time for us to figure out what exactly they had in mind to make bezerker better.

A lot of people (myself included) just want to help improve the game by the time it's out, but we can't really do that when we're given things to test out at such a slow rate.
Click to expand...

I can kinda see the merit here, although there are a couple of things that could be a tough sell. Specifically, creating an unstable branch means that we would have to prepare interim "releases" regularly; we couldn't just give access to the dev branch because there's often stuff in there that would potentially break the game for anyone that wanted to legitimately play it.

Taking the time to do that, and make sure it's playable (key word there) enough so that you could give us real, usable feedback is bandwidth and time that we really don't have, speaking from my perspective. There's also the time necessary to parse all of that feedback on a regular basis into reports, to figure out what's valid and/or relevant, what's not, etc. This is why QA departments exist -- it's a controlled environment where reports are streamlined and can be condensed. You wouldn't want to know what our dev tracker would look like if we allowed the entire community to file their own reports :)

In terms of having an unstable branch, how often would you expect builds? Just curious.
 
Upvote 0
#84
xrider84 said:
Sigh. .. you just can't reason with a child or a liberal. The same breed of people that complain and stick up for the young slackers at work when I tell them that they need to pick up the pace and quit slacking off. Oh well.
Click to expand...

Comes to our forum pointing fingers in every direction, hasn't contributed anything to the community, insults us at the same time.

Who the hell are you?

Please, tell me more, about how the developers are doing nothing towards the game, Mr. Self-Entitled customer.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#86
[TW]ZeroSum said:
I can kinda see the merit here, although there are a couple of things that could be a tough sell. Specifically, creating an unstable branch means that we would have to prepare interim "releases" regularly; we couldn't just give access to the dev branch because there's often stuff in there that would potentially break the game for anyone that wanted to legitimately play it.

Taking the time to do that, and make sure it's playable (key word there) enough so that you could give us real, usable feedback is bandwidth and time that we really don't have, speaking from my perspective. There's also the time necessary to parse all of that feedback on a regular basis into reports, to figure out what's valid and/or relevant, what's not, etc. This is why QA departments exist -- it's a controlled environment where reports are streamlined and can be condensed. You wouldn't want to know what our dev tracker would look like if we allowed the entire community to file their own reports :)

In terms of having an unstable branch, how often would you expect builds? Just curious.
Click to expand...
1. Your first post EVER. Say hi. What do you do for KF2?
2. Just let me play it I don't care if it crashes a lot. I just wanna try stuff early.
 
Upvote 0
#88
[TW]ZeroSum said:
I can kinda see the merit here, although there are a couple of things that could be a tough sell. Specifically, creating an unstable branch means that we would have to prepare interim "releases" regularly; we couldn't just give access to the dev branch because there's often stuff in there that would potentially break the game for anyone that wanted to legitimately play it.

Taking the time to do that, and make sure it's playable (key word there) enough so that you could give us real, usable feedback is bandwidth and time that we really don't have, speaking from my perspective. There's also the time necessary to parse all of that feedback on a regular basis into reports, to figure out what's valid and/or relevant, what's not, etc. This is why QA departments exist -- it's a controlled environment where reports are streamlined and can be condensed. You wouldn't want to know what our dev tracker would look like if we allowed the entire community to file their own reports :)

In terms of having an unstable branch, how often would you expect builds? Just curious.
Click to expand...

Isn't this a situation of trying to have your cake and eating it too?

Obviously it takes more effort and time to prepare frequent releases, but that's exactly the tradeoff you make when you decided to go early access. You created an ongoing commitment to the community to provide them with updates, in exchange for getting money 1+ year earlier than normal in your dev cycle.

Now nobody 'likes' bugs, but that's something people VERY clearly subscribe to when purchasing an early access game. If you have frequent updates you can also quickly resolve any real gamebreaking bugs.

If you release a patch every 3 months then no, you can't take any risks with bugs lol....
 
Upvote 0
#90
What was the point of making this game early access and saying that you guys are going "to do early access right" and not even have a basic experimental branch where your players can test your new things that you're adding; that way the "casual" players can still play the polished (and amazing for an EA game) version and then have people who want to help you fix things can go on the experimental branch and see the new things that are being added to to the game other than just letting us hear news every two weeks and then leave us in the dark
 
Upvote 0
#91
Even Chivalry has a Chivalry Beta where you can try the next patch build. Granted it is a finished game but Torn Banner is a pretty amateur company compared to Tripwire. That being said, I'd still prefer the current method of slow but massive updates. The main game shipped so smoothly you gained my trust. Release a massive content pack equally as polished and bug free and you'll reinforce that trust.
 
Upvote 0
#93
I'd rather not have a "Beta" build. It's like giving unstable experimentl gun to soldiers. Yeah it is powerfull, yeah soldiers like it but it has a chance to explode. I'd rather make it stable before issuing it to soldiers.

"It might not explode" you say, yes that is correct, but still there is a chance that it will.

I work in the customer support and I know what new releases mean. Especially if they were rushed: A metric ton of pissed people.

X does not work, Y works to slow. Give me a refund, you guys suck. etc.

TL-DR:

It is better to have ready and stable version compared to unstable one.
TW is doing great, I love WWUT posts keep them going when you can afford to.
 
Upvote 0
#94
I suppose I should add real quick that that was just my personal perspective on a dev branch. Few can speak for the company and as I'm brand new here, clearly I am not one of them.

The idea does intrigue me, because I'm one of those people who sees "dev" or "experimental" builds on a download page and will instinctively click those instead. But, at the same time I realize not everyone is like that.
 
Upvote 0
#95
Shotn1k2134 said:
X does not work, Y works to slow. Give me a refund, you guys suck. etc.
Click to expand...
Parrying does not work. Weapon switching works too slow. Give me a refund :p

But if seriously: yes, Tripwire releases stable and playable KF2 builds, but those aren't perfect though. There are many issues, like:
  • Teleporting zeds
  • Last-frame reload canceling
  • Parrying is unreliable online
  • Berserker sucks in general
  • M4 shotgun
  • Lack of map and kick voting
  • Weapon switching is too slow
  • Many perk skills are useless or bad choices comparing to their counterparts
  • etc.
According to WWAUT posts, some of above issues are fixed already. But players are waiting for several months to get those fixes. And there are no guarantees that the next "stable" version won't have new issues and we'll have to wait another few months again...
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
#96
poosh said:
Parrying does not work. Weapon switching works too slow. Give me a refund :p
Click to expand...

All sales are final and non refundable.


But yeah, it is a bit slow but hell, as if there is no other games to play in meantime.

I really interested in seeing the next patchnotes. For some odd reasons I simply enjoy reading patchnotes.

*Continues playing waiting game*
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Jump to latest Follow Reply
Community News
Forums
Merch
Menu