How's the patch coming along?

[Arcadian]

what is the issue with tanks? I never noticed anything when I played.

Only bugs or oddities I saw was being able to run over the planters (the bushes in planters) in the axis spawn of odessa, and occassionaly my weapons would not fire and grenades would not throw (sometimes after throwing down the weapons and picking them back up they worked, but not always), and also my shadows dont work and made weird graphics on the ground, and popping up above stuff like logs when prone.

Im sure they already know of all this stuff though, and im fine with the game how it is.

 

[Jack]

The "issue with the tanks" is that the penetration system is broke. That pretty much ruins the whole concept of realistic tanking.



That's what I meant earlier. Sure, you don't have the innate right to get patches for your game, but you do have the right to get what you paid for.

The armor system was touted as being one of the things that would set this game apart from others, and in the Steam forums especially, there was all this talk of how "This game has IL-2-like sim tanks...what can CoD or DoD say about that?"

I wish I had the patience to accept the "game how it is," but the vehicle system is just too irritating for my likes. I can't stand sneaking up to the rear of an enemy, putting a round through his rear hull, then seeing it bounce off while he turns his turret on me and blows me away because I was at "red health."



I guess if you didn't play the mod, then it would be more difficult to see the issue with tanks. But the old mod tanks actually had better damage modeling.

 

[Grobut]

True... but look at EA. They don't support their sports franchise other than bringing out full rpce titles every new year, and they start to adopt this model to other games too. And they seem to get away with it.

EA is one of the worst when it comes to support, not only would you be lucky to see a patch, but when you install the game a year later and want to relive it.. the patch is gone from their site, and you have to be lucky if you can find it on a private fansite.

They only support their games aslong as they are still selling in high numbers.

UBI is also horrible, thouse are the two worst publishers as far as i can tell.

 

[Tak]

It comes from EA being run as a corporation. They're not 'for gamers, by gamers'. They exist *only* to make money. Every now and then they have a decent title (but honestly, it has been a while) but you can expect to see the same crap over and over until their wallets start to hurt. Also they have so much muscle as a publishing company that I'm sure they HATE seeing things like Steam up and running (threatens their brick-and-mortar garunteed shelf space weight) so that's even more of a reason to use it ​

 

[raydude]

The "issue with the tanks" is that the penetration system is broke. That pretty much ruins the whole concept of realistic tanking.

The armor system was touted as being one of the things that would set this game apart from others, and in the Steam forums especially, there was all this talk of how "This game has IL-2-like sim tanks...what can CoD or DoD say about that?"

Agreed. I wish the game had more realistic tanks, just like....hmmm. Just like....Hmmm. I dunno. Jack, what FPS game has more realistic tanks than RO?

 

[akd]

Battleground Europe, but that doesn't mean it's a better game.

 

[Saturnalia]

Agreed. I wish the game had more realistic tanks, just like....hmmm. Just like....Hmmm. I dunno. Jack, what FPS game has more realistic tanks than RO?

Operation Flashpoint, though I don't think it modeled ammo storage. That aside, you could knock out individual tracks, the engine and the weapons on any given tank. Full 3D interiors too and the bots were actually quite good. Even the drivers! Though it helped that you could run over small bushes and trees

 

[Jack]

Agreed. I wish the game had more realistic tanks, just like....hmmm. Just like....Hmmm. I dunno. Jack, what FPS game has more realistic tanks than RO?

You are missing the point. The tanks in RO are not functioning as planned and promised by the devs, it has been acknowledged that they are broken, and player testing has illustrated it in living color.

Whether or not they are still more "realistic" in this state when compared to other games does not change that they are not working correctly.

When a feature of a game arrives broken on the market, the least that can be done is to restore this feature to how it was supposed to be when you bought the product, that is the simple idea of it. Hence, my original point that this is something developers should just consider as expected.

 

[Tak]

Their obligation stops after you buy the game though. No one should *ever* expect a patch. However, that said, the TW guys have always done a supperb job with patches. I'm willing to put money on saying most of the people who are going 'where's the patch?' are from other games (I won't mention names) that recieve shoddy excuses for player support.


TW has done an amazing job since the mod days. Not always timely, granted, but I'll take quality over speed any day.
​

 

[Jack]

Their obligation stops after you buy the game though. No one should *ever* expect a patch

Their obligation BEGINS when we wire transfer $24.95 to their accounts. Only in the video game world does this notion seem to exist. No, you get what you pay for.

You are right, no one should "expect a patch," but you should expect all facets of the game to work as intended.

You buy a CD player with the idea that it will not skip, you buy a book with the idea there isn't going to be pages of text missing. Hence, you buy a game expecting it to include all things as designed.


If something is broken or missing, then what choice does the consumer have but to not "expect a patch?" It is attitdes like yours that allow for developers to output shoddy products.

Think of this way: it is a win win situation for game developers if people maintain your viewpoint. They can release something half-done and/or with major bugs, then get accolades from people when they fix what should have been working to begin with!

It isn't consumers' fault that a bug is overlooked or a feature broken, therefore it is the obligation of the developers to remedy their mistake. By extension, it is developers' obligation to release patches. Note that content patches do not fall under this: no one should expect new content for free. But, you should expect the content you paid for to be present!

 

[Tak]

I'm not arguing against you, I'm arguing with you

I agree with whoever said it above that it's a sad indicator of how the industry has turned when it's almost to the point that we're suprised if software we buy even installs. I blame Windows!


EDIT: As for 'attitudes like mine', I am very selective (and unforgiving) when it comes to bad software titles and support. I haven't bought an EA or Sierra title in ages, and numerous other studios (Troika comes to mind) lost my support after their unsupported glitchy titles. If my original post was missinterpreted (I admit to being a bit brief, I was at work), my bad. If you are trying to start a flame war with saying 'attitudes like mine' (I don't think you are, just covering all grounds ) I will have to leave you dissapointed!
​

 

[Jack]

Ok, it seems I misunderstood you then.

It is not my intention to start a flame war at all, as you said I was speaking more in general terms. Basically that if we take the stance that patches should not be expected, then the only thing we can expect is a continuing degradation of developer-consumer relations.

 

[Sclass12]

It comes from EA being run as a corporation. They're not 'for gamers, by gamers'. They exist *only* to make money. Every now and then they have a decent title (but honestly, it has been a while) but you can expect to see the same crap over and over until their wallets start to hurt. Also they have so much muscle as a publishing company that I'm sure they HATE seeing things like Steam up and running (threatens their brick-and-mortar garunteed shelf space weight) so that's even more of a reason to use it ​

EA was much better back when they were called Electronic Arts

 

[jedinstven-o crni Wuk]

Their obligation BEGINS when we wire transfer $24.95 to their accounts. Only in the video game world does this notion seem to exist. No, you get what you pay for.

You are right, no one should "expect a patch," but you should expect all facets of the game to work as intended.

You buy a CD player with the idea that it will not skip, you buy a book with the idea there isn't going to be pages of text missing. Hence, you buy a game expecting it to include all things as designed.


If something is broken or missing, then what choice does the consumer have but to not "expect a patch?" It is attitdes like yours that allow for developers to output shoddy products.

Think of this way: it is a win win situation for game developers if people maintain your viewpoint. They can release something half-done and/or with major bugs, then get accolades from people when they fix what should have been working to begin with!

It isn't consumers' fault that a bug is overlooked or a feature broken, therefore it is the obligation of the developers to remedy their mistake. By extension, it is developers' obligation to release patches. Note that content patches do not fall under this: no one should expect new content for free. But, you should expect the content you paid for to be present!

the reason why i wait with buying this game finally till the next patch is out ... glad that i was able to test it with a friends steam account, as how the game is now, i woud not buy it, its good, but it needs to be patched. How ever this is of course my own opinion.

I just bought to much games, that called there self, realistic, great, etc. etc. and have exposed to be buged and without the promised features. I know 20$ (or how much it cost now) isnt the world and it can be payed, but, its about the principle, that i just want, for my money, what they promised.

 

[Hax0rJimDuggan]

Personally, I just want some bug fixes/optimizations. Get me another 5-10 fps and I'll be a happy camper.

 

[Tru3Slaughter]

Their obligation BEGINS when we wire transfer $24.95 to their accounts. Only in the video game world does this notion seem to exist. No, you get what you pay for.

You are right, no one should "expect a patch," but you should expect all facets of the game to work as intended.

You buy a CD player with the idea that it will not skip, you buy a book with the idea there isn't going to be pages of text missing. Hence, you buy a game expecting it to include all things as designed.


If something is broken or missing, then what choice does the consumer have but to not "expect a patch?" It is attitdes like yours that allow for developers to output shoddy products.

Think of this way: it is a win win situation for game developers if people maintain your viewpoint. They can release something half-done and/or with major bugs, then get accolades from people when they fix what should have been working to begin with!

It isn't consumers' fault that a bug is overlooked or a feature broken, therefore it is the obligation of the developers to remedy their mistake. By extension, it is developers' obligation to release patches. Note that content patches do not fall under this: no one should expect new content for free. But, you should expect the content you paid for to be present!

the games only been out what 2 months and you're screaming? try cod2 games been out since 11/05 1 patch and now its worse than ever. it takes time to resolve some issues. i'm sure they'll fix it, this game plans to be around for quite awhile.

 

[Solo4114]

1.) I expect Tripwire is working on the patch and I suspect it'll fix a lot of the issues. They're generally pretty good and committed to fixing bugs. In the days of the mod, they really worked to try to nail down certain bugs (IE: the grenade bug where you threw it and it blew up in your hand). I expect they'll take that same approach this time.

2.) When I buy a game, I don't just buy the game. I buy support for that game as well. If the game doesn't function properly out of the box (and let's face it, what games DO in this industry?), then I have every reason to expect a patch. I paid for a fully functional game, not a "take a chance and see what stuff works and what doesn't" game. So, because NO game is released fully functional, ALL games should get patches and players should expect -- even demand -- patches. If other folks want to throw their money away on a partially functioning product, that's their choice, but I think they have a right to expect better for their money.

3.) If a developer stops supporting a game, that doesn't always mean the developer is at fault. Especially in cases involving EA, EA controls the purse strings. Developing a patch costs money. Those are man-hours NOT being spent on producing your next revenue-generating title. And if EA doesn't give you the cash to make the patch, you ain't gonna be putting one out. So, I don't fault the developers all the time. They're often at the mercy of the publisher.

 

[Jack]

Nice points to consider Solo4114, especially number 2, I think that sums up nicely the whole issue.




Anyway, I didn't intend this thread to turn into a bashing session for certain developers, or to debate the merits of patching, but rather just to ask the devs what the status was.


I know they are working on a patch, I was just curious as to how it is coming along and when we can expect to see it.

 

[Grobut]

We're not bashing developers, we're bashing puplishers, and they deserve it!


But dont expect much chatter from the Dev team about the patch, not their style, they like to wait till they have something to tell us before they make announcments, they have allways done it like that.