as costumer asking for an opinion to the devs

[mat69]

still doesnt change the fact that it would have taken away from the game more then it added. It also doesnt make the devs want to talk more about anything. I remember when they guy was posting on these forums saying the devs where lieing about it not being do able. I remeber asking why they even said anything because all it did wass bit them in the ass.

Fact? That hardly qualifies as fact imo.
They said it was not able, but it was. Where's your problem with that?
And problems occured that maybe could have been solved if they had access or hints to those internal functions (as mentioned in that link, that I posted because it is much less work to read that one than the threads here).
And then acting like you want to help but not answering for at least a month (not sure on the exact number) ****s.

This mutator could have been great and improved a lot. I still believe that information and bug testing would have helped. RO was tested and improved as well for a long time, if the attitude would have been there as well (smoke would have aken away from the game more than it added ....), well you would not have a lot of stuff. It's often the same in a developement process (at least what I see with beta versions of programs, Linux distributions ...) there are problems and a lot of them can be solved or worked around.

And before anyone tries to interpret my words wrong I'll say it myself: No I don't like Ramm, I think he is dislikable. His imo childish attitude in the Code-forum lead to that impression. There are people here who try to improve RO (not only add contents, but improve the stuff that is allready there) but they often (?) do not receive help (Amizaur's postings comes into my mind). And if you can't be above "wrong" accusations and simply prove them wrong you sound like the CEO of SCO.

 

[Ender]

i dont even know what we are talking about anymore. Let me know when the devs get back to you on your demands.

 

[mat69]

Yeah got carried a bit OT, sorry for that.

 

[Dwarden]

Show me a game that's 200 bucks. There are probably like 2 in the history of computer games.

The budget price is absolute standard for a game that's running on an old engine and is mostly distributed electronically (I don't have to tell you how much that saves costs for the producer).

I highly doubt TW is making significantly less money per copy sold than the average game developers do.

So no, that's no excuse for buggy gameplay in my books.

evidently You know nothing about cost of simulators and serious games ...

and same goes about game development ...

for tester most of points highlighted as "problem" by You and some other gamers
are nothing compared with what i think should be fixed ...

but that's like i said before - development priorities and opinions differs ...

it's not possible to satisfy every single user of Your game, due to our personalities

and about game biz, it's to made money , so don't await charity style with endless support cycle...

i doubt You can say that TWI rip You off, that they big time lied or that they completely ignore You ...

plus i see this topic went way too far offtopic and failed to be constructive (turned into personal hates) ...

and about Matt and your "penetrations" problem:

get your facts straight -
as developer You want fully stable working minimal performance impact solution for RETAIL game ...
in moment someone appear, throw on You half working problematic solution what You will do ?
was said x times it can be done but not w/o way too much effort, need to redo ALL retail maps and so on
(i guess you can't imagine nr. of workhours need for that)...

due to personal attacks i don't want to go into details as i feel what already happened can't be undone
(way too many hotheads and stubborn thinking) ...

my last post in this thread ... sorry for interrupting ...

 

[KrazyKraut]

Evidently you didn't read my post.

I said a GAME that costs 200, I'm not talking about professional simulators. Still waiting for one. But since you seem to be an expert on game development show me where exactly I said anything that was wrong about said matter, please.

plus i see this topic went way too far offtopic and failed to be constructive (turned into personal hates) ...

Yeah and your contribution was?

 

[mat69]

OT: @Dwarden Yes it would need redoing of most/all (?) maps but that is less work than you might imagine as you have only to change the Surface_Type to get a consistent penetration on the different objects (if you would not do that, the default penetration would be used). Yes it would be still a lot of work and a lot to download, but we had to "redownload" some maps anyway (added smoke, uc ...) before.
And after all it was intended as proof of conecpt - and it did accomplish that.

 

[Cleft_Asunder]

Show me a game that's 200 bucks. There are probably like 2 in the history of computer games.

The budget price is absolute standard for a game that's running on an old engine and is mostly distributed electronically (I don't have to tell you how much that saves costs for the producer).

I highly doubt TW is making significantly less money per copy sold than the average game developers do.

So no, that's no excuse for buggy gameplay in my books.

I agree, there is no excuse for bugs, and the justification for my stance is that SIMULATORS such as IL-2, Combat Mission, Steel Beasts et cetera are done to PERFECTION over time. You people make it sound like support for a game that you payed for is a new idea, and we should by thankful that we get any support at all. In fact, in the past, developers produced games for the joy of it and they had good 2-way with the community, releasing patches that everyone agreed with. In other words, patches/game support should be a GIVEN, not a luxory.

Ideally every game should be patched to the point of full potential, and only afterward should the developers move on to the next game. As you may have noticed, it's not about modern graphics, it's about flexible game engines that do look good, but above all are stable and smooth, and about the game which feels just right, like Ghost Recon did in it's time. The Unreal 2 engine, in my opinion, is good but not great -- it feels sloppy like it was thrown together by overworked programmers trying to meet a deadline. It's not perfected in other words.

 

[fiftyone]

Go take a look at the fix list for the last IL 2 patch, there is more to come.

To call the programmers at Epic "sloppy" I think is a little inappropriate.

As for Ghost Recon, well I'll say nothing !

A good game is, a good game but they've all got bugs.

 

[Monkwarrior]

Interesting to see a topic derailing completly.
He didn't ask for your opinions gentlemen, he asked for a reaction of TW.
All he got was loads of the first and none of the second.

Monk.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

And before anyone tries to interpret my words wrong I'll say it myself: No I don't like Ramm, I think he is dislikable. His imo childish attitude in the Code-forum lead to that impression.

Who cares about your PERSONAL "Likes and Dislikes"?? You are outta line and completely off base bringing in personalities and then.... making personal attacks.

You have destroyed any credibility you had by doing so.

 

[mat69]

OT: @Mike I never implied that someone cares about what I like or dislike, I simply wanted to "safe" postings. Yes that post maybe sounded a bit frustrated, because well it simply was written in such a state - as I reread some forum-postings before. I like RO and I think it has a great potential, but some potential seems (?) to be lost due to imo ridiculous reasons.
What people then think is up to them.

Edit: The "What people..."-part is directed at the "... any credibility..."-part

 

[=GG= Mr Moe]

I will be the first to admit that I like ROOST so much, that I am able to overlook the small anomolies that I rarely encounter. Worst thing that happens to me is that I occasionally have to eliminate that 'clientregistry.blob' file every three or four months.

As I stated before, much of the original poster's questions I thought were more opinion than 'bugs' or 'issues'. In that regard, I like how the game operates as it now stands. I myself see no reason to change them.

Some other 'issues' that players have addressed, most likely those relating to armor, could probably be improved in regards to realism. Before you debate whether it should be done or not, I am going to state that despite any issues I would have with this aspect of the game, it is still better than any other I have played. How much time do you think they should devote to this considering the many factors - the game has been out a year, they don't have the resources of a company such as 'EA', they may be encorporating many of these suggestions in a future game (they are steering their resources towards future development), the game only cost a little over $20, not to mention they may be attempting to address some of these concerns already and of course can't comment on them for various reasons already mentioned in other threads.

Some may call me a fanboy of RO. I prefer to think I am more realistic and can accept the many factors that affect the concerns mentioned here. Opposite of that, it appears there are those here who are trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. There is no need for people on both sides of the aisle to go ballistic over it.

 

[Mike_Nomad]

And before anyone tries to interpret my words wrong I'll say it myself: No I don't like Ramm, I think he is dislikable. His imo childish attitude in the Code-forum lead to that impression.

OT: @Mike I never implied that someone cares about what I like or dislike, I simply wanted to "safe" postings. Yes that post maybe sounded a bit frustrated, because well it simply was written in such a state - as I reread some forum-postings before. I like RO and I think it has a great potential, but some potential seems (?) to be lost due to imo ridiculous reasons. What people then think is up to them.

No amount of lame excuses overlook personal attacks. Period!

IMHO, you owe Ramm an apology.

Express your opinions, suggestions and critiques all you wish, personal attacks have NO place in this forum.

Some may call me a fanboy of RO. I prefer to think I am more realistic and can accept the many factors that affect the concerns mentioned here. Opposite of that, it appears there are those here who are trying to squeeze blood from a turnip. There is no need for people on both sides of the aisle to go ballistic over it.

I believe I fit that very same description Moe...

Some have a tendency to become emotional in their responses. Others, unfortunately, become vindictive and argumentative but thankfully, the vast majority tend to stay on topic and use common sense while engaged in polite discussion. Thanx for your opinion.

While the topic seems to ask for opinions from the developers, its really an oblique critique of the overall game that can create a stir. Truth is RO is by far, the best that we can find out there when it comes to detail, realism, support and communication from and by the developers, TWI. They have done and will, by all current indications, continue to do a great job for us.

 

[Murphy]

Show me a game that's 200 bucks. There are probably like 2 in the history of computer games.

The budget price is absolute standard for a game that's running on an old engine and is mostly distributed electronically (I don't have to tell you how much that saves costs for the producer).

I highly doubt TW is making significantly less money per copy sold than the average game developers do.

So no, that's no excuse for buggy gameplay in my books.

I was mainly talking about simulations. Flight-simulators used to train pilots, car simulators which can be used to train drivers, the simulation-version of Operation Flashpoint and the like. Those ARE expensive and you have all the rights in the world to complain there if they don't portray certain aspects of those they portray on a level of realism that is high enough for you.

Because you paid for a simulation and if it fails, your trainee fails.

This isn't a simulation however. It is a game, and a game is never 100% realistic. You could even call the messed up tankmodel a feature that was intended to be as it was when the game was released (a patch corrected a lot, not even a month later iirc) and it would still be much more realistic than any other multiplayershooter out there.

In case of a budget game - because you paid 29.99$ or less, no matter how much of it is eaten up by the devs (I bought a CD version for 29.99

 

[mat69]

No amount of lame excuses overlook personal attacks. Period!

It was neither intended as lame nor as excuse, there won't be an apology for something I think.

 

[KrazyKraut]

If you read the reviews or the early threads on the steam forums you'd see that the consensus among the gaming scene (as far as there can be any) was that the game had lots of potential but also somewhat outdated graphics for a 2006 release. It was basically one of the last releases of said, outdated UE 2.5. Charging 39.99 would've simply been a bit much for a game based on a 3 year old engine.

Nevertheless the point still stands: At 29.99 you can expect your game to not have any gameplay-crippeling bugs. And the armor system is just that. You can suggest features all you want, be happy when they add them and continue finding excuses for the messed up tank models. I'd much rather have the content at hand work properly, thank you.

 

[jedinstven-o crni Wuk]

Guys. Can you please stop this private-wars ? This tread was meant directly to devs not anyone from the community.

Dont take opinions about the devs as personal insults again your self! As mentioned they are very arware of defending there self if needed! Or will just ignore. And if so far even the devs ignore this questions and opinions, why not the community?

Anyway if this gets ignored, then I know how much iam as a costumer worth, and will think twice if i buy a next game from Tripwive. This is not meant as a insult against their work! I dont think i demanded something impossible. Just information. If the next patches will fix the armor so far that it works at least to a certain stage "right" i will be the first one that opens a thread and apologize for ever questioning our "gods" . Guys calm down, seriously.

And to say this game is the "best" you can get out on the WW2 market is also extrem exagerated as it is and stays opinion.

Letz face it. Games like Bf1942 and CoD even DoD:S have a much larger fanbase the RO:O, even when there is a worst support from the seller then here. Now that either means, this is the "best" game ever, you can buy and the big part of the WW2 community are just players without sense OR the RO commuity is full with some kind of "elitism" I think the truth is somewhere in the midle. Games lilke BF or DoD do not mean less fun than RO:O, they are just a different kind of game in with the same setting and aim for a different kind of player. That tells nothing about the peoples behaviour or their intelligence. Some like Apples, other Bananas. But they all are fruits.

I have enough knowledge in software-design and product selling to know that the market, not just in the gaming industry (but there particular) is messed up. The costumer is now not more then a jack of all trades device to get fast money treatet like garbage. This is not particular meant from one company. Some do better work then others, but its meant as a general statement.

People might believe it or not. But patches are NOT a privilege, the game developers HAVE to give patches to the costumers, if they want it or not. At least if they sell their products in Germany, as they also have accepted german terms from selling (as a example, no game can be sold here with swastikas involved, also there is a german version with slightly reduced gore). It is about what the game advertise and delivers to the costumer. HL2, Doom3 or RO:O is there no exception.

Lot of people started a hipe about HL2, though when i read on the box, I the truth is a bit different "never seen AI and realism" and now letz see how realistic the whole game is. So yes I was also dissapointed with HL2. From Doom3 i exactly got what i bought. I never demanded intelligent AI or great realism. I wanted a plane shoter with a "bit" storyline and good graphic. And i have been very happy with Doom3

But to "demand" certain features, because right now the game is "unacceptable" is nothing short of ridiculous in my book.

i see your point. But at least with the tanks i do not demand a feature or suggestion. I demand working armor calculations. IF that is not possible then i want to know WHY it is not possible. Tat is a difference.

 

[worluk]

People might believe it or not. But patches are NOT a privilege, the game developers HAVE to give patches to the costumers, if they want it or not. At least if they sell their products in Germany, as they also have accepted german terms from selling (as a example, no game can be sold here with swastikas involved, also there is a german version with slightly reduced gore). It is about what the game advertise and delivers to the costumer. HL2, Doom3 or RO:O is there no exception.

the game delivers exactly what it advertises, its your interpretation of terms that conflicts with what is delivered.

And btw. since you want to contact the devs, you might want to consider email or PM, this is a community forum...

 

[Murphy]

If you read the reviews or the early threads on the steam forums you'd see that the consensus among the gaming scene (as far as there can be any) was that the game had lots of potential but also somewhat outdated graphics for a 2006 release.

Haha. Yeah, the source-fanboys are so fond of their precious source engine, that you can hardly call them in as a reference of what people thought about anything but CSS or DoD:S...
I can remember those DoD:S-guys who said that RO looked so ugly because the soldiers wear six-sided low-poly helmets ... Finest art of comedy.

 

[jedinstven-o crni Wuk]

the game delivers exactly what it advertises, its your interpretation of terms that conflicts with what is delivered.
(...)

Wenn man das oft genug sagt. Stimmt es irgendwann sogar.

Ok sehen wir uns mal das Spiel, seine Schl