GShock
-
Posts
352 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Gallery
Downloads
Events
Posts posted by GShock
-
-
The routing issue is being addressed.
I have other ideas about the reinforcements... but your suggestion will surely be put into the cauldron for this feature. Don't know yet what's gonna happen but something with the reinforcements is surely gonna happen.
As of the battle editor I don't think this is possible because the map is something too complex to design, the OOB feature would be nice too. It's in the cauldron too.
The battle replay is a great idea.
-
The update doesn't install correctly? I have two other friends with the same experience of the game as I had after steam updated the game. Will try the above, thanks for that. But what about other players that don't know to do this? Shouldn't the update install work?
The DEVs will identify the issue in the installer, should my wild guess be correct, if it's solved for you it will be solved for everyone through a hotfix pushed via Steam, they won't need to do anything: Steam will propagate the patch to their clients automatically. So... the sooner you try this step, the better for you and for everyone else.
-
You guys are so polite, and that's nice, but some real frankness: The patch is nothing of the sort it has broken an otherwise good game. The game is no longer possible to play in multiplayer mode. Are you folks not playing in multi-player? Am I living in some screwed up alternate universe?
All of the multiplayer maps are now in some screwed up night time mode? I even got the same map with two different names! What a complete cluster. I think it would be best to quickly pull off the patch on steam so the company doesn't ruin it's reputation.
Did you already post about this in the Support forum?
Have you already tried to uninstall the game, delete the folder and then reinstall it again? The issues you describe sound like version incompatibility which happens with faulty installations.
-
For the time being, this much needed patch was released to address major faults and implement some new features (most notably, but not only, the arty limbering).
In the future, all the pre-announced new features will be implemented while other bugs and glitches are addressed.
At the speed of development we've had, without that freezing issue, UGG would have had a lot more fixes but it was more important to release a stable platform, gather the feedback of all players (which is what you just did) and then put down a new patching plan for the next patch.
Rest assured, it's not over yet.
-
1
-
-
We've been delayed because of a nasty freezing issue that took us almost 2 weeks to identify and solve.
We have been testing the release candidate and i have strong feelings about the latest one we've been given.
Don't worry, when you see the changelog you'll realize how big this patch impacts gameplay, why it took us so long (solving the freezes AND adding features and fixes at the same time) and you won't be disappointed.
Patience, remember: the longer you wait, the bigger the improvements.
-
Performing multiplayer tests.
Don't worry you'll be notified when the patch is out. You'll all know.
-
Wait for the patch.
-
I don't think that was the OP's question, GShock. I'm fairly sure he worked out the "It's not ready, yet"-bit, himself.
I am not at liberty to tell him WHEN or WHY, Myes. I told him all I could.
-
It's not ready yet, patience, they're working on it.
-
Only Beta can access the Beta forums.
No ETA on release at present stage, the team is working 'round the clock.
-
Finetuned for next patch.
-
Listen to da man, he's the author of the guide!
-
I had the IOS version test all over me and I am quite satisfied with it. This means it's MONTHS I haven't played the PC version.
We've just begun the tests on the latest Beta and hopefully it can be released in a few days. That will put us closer to the tactical aspect satisfaction and then hopefully the IOS version is released and we can move on to the next steps for the PC version.
Naturally, everything is perfectible but nothing is ever perfect.
-
Hold on, we're testing the patch!
-
The engine has 2 sides: the tactical aspect (the battlefield itself) and the strategic aspect (what happens in the background to move to the next engagement).
The team is working on both sides but the 1st side is priority. Once the battle works reasonably close to a real ACW battle, then more focus can be given to the strategic aspects of the engine.
In the meanwhile, the team is focused in releasing the IOS version and that comes before anything else.
It's all about being a little more patient and all the problems about incoherence between one engagement and the next will be solved.
I have proposed a solution that would have all of us involved in addressing this problem, I'd like to know if any of you has different ideas or proposals.
-
1
-
-
No, not planned and yes, the overall CW campaign would be a set of scenarios but it couldn't be a real campaign because this game only impacts on the individual battles and not politics and economic issues behind the CW.
Welcome to the forums.
-
Publish the changelog before pushing out the patch itself!
-
You guys have totally derailed from the topic.
-
Don't worry about that. The game is even too balanced in regards to historicity. When you learn to use troops properly you'll see
Wait for the patch, it's bound to come soon and many many things will change.
-
You've got to learn how to use troops here. The game is a lot harder than it seems and there's a guide that may help you that REB Blunt wrote. IIRC it's in the stickies.
-
There simply is no way to make everyone happy but the point is: since some people REALLY studied history and know a LOT about the american civil war (most likely more than the DEVs and surely the common knowledge of the community shadows the knowledge of any single person here, no matter how much he knows), since this battle in particular has been analyzed in OOB, strategies and terrain, I see nothing wrong (on the contrary I see it as the perfect solution) to have the community build custom battles that depict exactly what they know, what they think would have happened in case the Prelude had gone differently, in case Little Round Top had been captured by CSA, etc. etc.
More in general allow the community to build the way they think the engine should switch from one battle to another and make these community-built scenarios "under evaluation" by the DEVs for implementation into the standard game.
We most certainly already have the tools:
Scenario setting (Build the briefing, set objectives: how many VP to be held by the end of the scenario; start/end time of the scenario)
Map editor (which parts of the map must be used; where, what value and how many VPs must be put into this map)
OOB editor (Build starting units [in all details, including their starting morale and condition] and leaders, build reinforcing units and leaders and assign these groups to the scenario)
Battle editor (Manage reinforcements from OOB: the time of arrival, the location of their arrival)
This stuff is already in the engine.
If it is released to the community, people can start building Custom Battles and if these custom battles are historically accurate, the DEVs may put them into the game.
This is called modding.
Now, not only the quality of modded games is always better than the quality of vanilla games (as far as my humongous experience goes), but we also have the luck to have a person among the DEVs who's been a very talented and successful modder in the Total War engine environment and who knows this statement to be true... and he hopefully will agree.
At the light of the fact the game is just out and that at present time the DEVs are entirely focused on the IOS version, I'd say there's no reason for harsh criticism right now (it is ultra-important to state here that I myself am very unsatisfied of many things in the PC version but I just take a different approach). There's reason to report, discuss and help the DEVs improve the game.
The reason + the tools guarantee that this will happen.
Let the flames, harsh criticism and even "go to hell" things come if at 2.0 the fixes asked haven't come. That's how it should work, in my opinion.
-
1
-
-
I honestly have no idea what these guys are talking about but I presume either or all of them should have done as I did, simply talk only about what's worth talking.
Don't let the thread derails. If one posts anything that could lead to flames, ignore and discuss only about the rest.
-
That behavior is truly sad and over the line but it looks clear David has a bitter relationship with the DEVs and the game, God knows why.
In his comments I always tried to ignore the criticism that leads to nowhere but I appreciated the fact he wasn't censored because it's the right way to handle criticism and manage forums.
I seem to understand he's unsatisfied about the campaign progress throughout TIME. I mean between one battle and another. I am unsatisfied too and proposed a solution but it appears that this solution isn't good either. Then I checked and I didn't see an alternate proposal and this left me puzzled.
UGG is supposed to build 4 days of combat with different engagements in these 4 days that are tactically connected to one another. This means it is supposed to build a dynamic campaign.
Even an engine of this simplicity on a very small theater, such an enterprise is beyond the means of this DEV team and if you carefully look at Creative Assembly, just to name a famous and HUGE DEV House, their campaign doesn't seem to be working either... and we're talking not only of a hundred times bigger manpower but also an experience in developing the same engine that exceeds 10 years.
The only viable alternative, in my opinion, is to build a hundred scenarios (branches) to insert in the campaign and let the engine select which is more appopriate to jump to, after the results of the prelude, while carrying on the losses of each side from one scenario to the other. Now building a hundred scenarios (and test them for accuracy, balance and presumed hypothetical historicity) is a huge undertaking by itself and that's why I proposed to release a map editor (not one where you can change the map but one where you can select which parts of the map are in use and where to place VPs) and an OOB editor (where you can select which segments of the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Northern Virginia will be pitted together) so that the community (us all) can build "custom battles" that the DEVS (and the DEVS only) may insert in the game.
I express harsh criticism, in this particular case, mitigated by the realistic expectations I have from this game, but I also propose solutions. Harsh criticism by itself, as harsh as it can get, seems more pointless and self-embarassing than useful. What's the point of criticizing something you have already criticized with an increased "harsh rate"? If there's no point there's no reason to do it at all... no?
It's his point I don't understand in doing what he did.
-
It is at all possible to retropatch UGG with the new "technologies" discussed here that will be built for the new game. I think the DEVs are satisfied for the release of a new engine that has got a huge potential. Fixing this and that here in UGG and moving on to a new scenario is the fastest way to survive in the business but if they fix this and that in UGG, port new things into the new title and these new things are retropatched here, UGG will be a seller for over a decade. I'd like many things to change too but we've got to face reality of business. The path to improve UGG will be slow but success is what matters.
Consequently, the IOS version is close to release and the many good things it has will probably be ported to the PC version. The IOS is very different and extremely enjoyable. It is only natural to focus on this release first and the things that are already in, do not need much hassle to go to the PC. THEN can we talk of improving them both, slowly, as the next title gets built.
Most likely, this process in the curtain will bring new little changes to UGG. Then UGG becomes the stable platform to test mechanisms for the new game and when THAT is released, all its stuff can be "ported back" to UGG.
It's a "engine 1.0" right now until next title is released. Patience is the virtue of the strong.
Feedback (UPDATED: 11/9/2015)
in General Discussions
Posted
A map editor, technically speaking, is a feature that allows you to draw a map... and the map is a bit more than just a graphical representation. More than just the modders, it takes map makers but before that, it takes the map editor itself which is probably part of the SDK and I don't think the DEVs would be willing to release it right now after the 1st title with this engine. There's scenarios to be made for future DLCs that map editor would fool. The OOB instead is about building the army and setting units on the field in starting or reinforcing position. That can be done, for fictional battles in Gettysburg... and it probably will be done later on.
Your suggestion about the UI is in the cauldron. In due time I am sure it's among the top priorities.
YES the DEVs read these pages.