Why are we being asking to beta test a AAA budget game?

[Mooselager]

Why aren't CA using their funds & budget to properly bugscreen & test their own game before releasing?

A lone hero agent was preventing armies from attacking because they were being mistaken
for armies. Please tell me a manager was fired over this lengthy oversight?

[Eldi]

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

If only we could go into the warehouse to check for unshelved product when the shelf is empty.

*chefs kiss*

[Coldhands]

Originally posted by Mooselager:

Originally posted by Conflagration:

CA have asked the community to look at the changes they are making to ensure that it is something the community is happy with. This is a good thing. Sotek deliver me from this dumb take. Absolutely incomprehensible.

Ah yes, the stereotypical online user. Has no actual feedback or anything to contribute, but wishes to lash out & use insults. You should also go to your local grocery store & stock the shelves for free, based on your logic.

Their feedback was explaining why the community beta is a good thing. And a lot of the products you buy in the grocery store probably did go through some kind of user testing so the manufacturer could gather feedback. It's a pretty common practice for companies who want to make sure they're aligned with the market/userbase.

[Solvem Probler]

This is more of a PR stunt than a real beta. When have CA ever listened to feedback from anyone, including their own stable of influencers?

[Da_Higg]

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

This is more of a PR stunt than a real beta. When have CA ever listened to feedback from anyone, including their own stable of influencers?

Well they listened to the feedback from the AI beta as several of the potential changes are going back to the drawing board rather than being implemented in 6.1

[Coldhands]

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

This is more of a PR stunt than a real beta. When have CA ever listened to feedback from anyone, including their own stable of influencers?

I mean, we got a bunch more content added to SoC and the scope of future DLC changed based on community feedback.

[Solvem Probler]

Originally posted by Coldhands:

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

This is more of a PR stunt than a real beta. When have CA ever listened to feedback from anyone, including their own stable of influencers?

I mean, we got a bunch more content added to SoC and the scope of future DLC changed based on community feedback.

If by "feedback" you mean "outrage", yes.
But historically speaking, and the various Youtube shills will confirm this, CA never gave a crap about feedback.

[Coldhands]

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

Originally posted by Coldhands:

I mean, we got a bunch more content added to SoC and the scope of future DLC changed based on community feedback.

If by "feedback" you mean "outrage", yes.
But historically speaking, and the various Youtube shills will confirm this, CA never gave a crap about feedback.

So, they don't listen to feedback, except when they do listen to feedback.
I doubt CA is just throwing darts at a board to decide which factions to focus on, or what features to add. This whole patch we're apparently being asked to beta test so unfairly is about reworking the game's AI. Have you not noticed all the complaints about the AI in this game since its launch?

[Solvem Probler]

Originally posted by Coldhands:

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

If by "feedback" you mean "outrage", yes.
But historically speaking, and the various Youtube shills will confirm this, CA never gave a crap about feedback.

So, they don't listen to feedback, except when they do listen to feedback.
I doubt CA is just throwing darts at a board to decide which factions to focus on, or what features to add. This whole patch we're apparently being asked to beta test so unfairly is about reworking the game's AI. Have you not noticed all the complaints about the AI in this game since its launch?

SoC wasn't a case of feedback, as I said. They paddled back because they were afraid of future financial losses over people being angry at the lack of content.

There was no community effort to get them to rework the AI. They're doing it now, I suspect, because they have a bunch of devs that would otherwise be doing nothing. And we haven't seen the results of this rework, maybe it'll all be rolled back. The means to adjust the AI are extremely limited to begin with.

If they really wanted to do something FOR the community they'd be reworking sieges but that's something they know very well can't be fixed in the current engine.

[Amphibian Artillery]

Can’t wait till they do a siege rework beta but they’re not doing it because of all the feedback from players since launch. They’re only doing because they have new devs doing nothing.

And if they wanted to do something for the actual community they’d start reworking diplomacy

[Coldhands]

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

Originally posted by Coldhands:

So, they don't listen to feedback, except when they do listen to feedback.
I doubt CA is just throwing darts at a board to decide which factions to focus on, or what features to add. This whole patch we're apparently being asked to beta test so unfairly is about reworking the game's AI. Have you not noticed all the complaints about the AI in this game since its launch?

SoC wasn't a case of feedback, as I said.

Dude, if a bunch of people getting really mad on the game's forum because of a decision the devs made isn't feedback, I don't think you know what feedback is.

[Solvem Probler]

Originally posted by Coldhands:

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

SoC wasn't a case of feedback, as I said.

Dude, if a bunch of people getting really mad on the game's forum because of a decision the devs made isn't feedback, I don't think you know what feedback is.

I suppose the Storming of the Bastille was a sort of "feedback" for the monarchy, sure.

[Coldhands]

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

Originally posted by Coldhands:

Dude, if a bunch of people getting really mad on the game's forum because of a decision the devs made isn't feedback, I don't think you know what feedback is.

I suppose the Storming of the Bastille was a sort of "feedback" for the monarchy, sure.

I'm sure that's what the maddest folks here thought they were doing in rageposting about a sub par DLC. : p

[Velber]

Originally posted by Amphibian Artillery:

Can’t wait till they do a siege rework beta but they’re not doing it because of all the feedback from players since launch. They’re only doing because they have new devs doing nothing.

And if they wanted to do something for the actual community they’d start reworking diplomacy

so you want them to not work on what people have been asking them to?
what kind of self-contradictory logic is this?

[Chibbity]

Originally posted by Solvem Probler:

If they really wanted to do something FOR the community they'd be reworking sieges but that's something they know very well can't be fixed in the current engine.

"If they REALLY wanted to do something for the community, they'd be fixing something that even I, in this very sentence; admit can't realistically be fixed."

Like...do you even read the things you write lol?

[dazone]

I call this post-Hyena fallout. TCAL lost manpower after getting the hammer by Sega so now they have to use us players as guinea pigs. Hell the last dlc is subpar and takes 9 month to come out so you go figure it out