Release date: April 24, 2025

[Oompah]

^^

[Jaris B.]

Originally posted by Blitzwing:

The way I see it Tempest Rising isn't getting the time it needs.

And what make you think that? That is the important question here that you spend most of this thread and multiple others avoiding to answer.

The rest of your post are just truisms that almost everyone would agree with.

But I and many others just spend two weeks playing TR and most of us liked it.
So what - specifically - are we wrong about?

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Jarisbjörn:

Originally posted by Blitzwing:

The way I see it Tempest Rising isn't getting the time it needs.

And why is that? That is the important question here that you spend most of this thread and multiple others avoiding to answer.

The rest of your post are just truisms that almost everyone would agree with.

But I and many others just spend two weeks playing TR and most of us liked it.
So what - specifically - are we wrong about?

You have to collect people opinion, adjust the game and collect peoples opinion till its approved. It is going to take a lot of time.

The Industry Standard Experts and Experienced teams do recommend
at least 6 month beta.
https://www.instabug.com/blog/beta-testing-budget

Originally posted by author:

A beta test cycle should run for a minimum of 4-6 weeks to provide good results and it is not uncommon for beta tests to run for more than 6 months.

-"two weeks" but it should be like 2 or 3 times longer.

-So release the game in 4 month sounds very rushed,
if its common to have 6 months test time.

If you rush things, you tend to mess stuff up and overlook problems.
A good example is AoA, where instead to let resources last longer,
they kind of made an entirely new game, with new issues.

In a nutshell each RTS team so far, was a victim of not get the time they need.
Why should it be now by Tempest Rising different?

The way I see it, we don't have an "approved build"
and they don't get the time to achieve it.

[Jaris B.]

Originally posted by Blitzwing:

The Industry Standard Experts and Experienced teams do recommend
at least 6 month beta.

It is written under the assumption that you are developing a completely new software from the groundup and have to account basic software stability issues. And not a game in a established genre and a professional game engine.

And even they don't recommend "at least 6 month beta", they recommend at least 4 weeks. Which is easy to do with almost 6 months left before release.

They also say you should have around 100-300 beta tester and not to get too many.
Kind of incongruent with your calls for an open beta.

Lastly, your suggestion that the devs should get their game "approved" by the testers is something you pulled completely out of your behind and is not in the testing guide you linked.
If followed it would lead to the game never getting released, as its consumer base is devided into multiple different camps with completely contradictory ideas what it should be like, that would never agree on one build.

[₪ Ħ•Ц•Ŋ•۩•Σ•Я]

I hope the game's cutscenes involve sexy girls like tanya :D that is what I like most in the campaigns of red alert series.

[Jules]

It has been a long long wait, but still looking forward to this release.
So long as they are active in responding to any major comments after release, then I do not see a major concern with gameplay. It does not matter how many beta tests, or long its been in development. There will always going to be some complaints. So just be prepared for that, and roll with it.
Hoping for user created maps and mission mod content at some point after release.

[MANFACE!]

You spelled 2055 wrong.

[hifron]

Or take EA engine, throws EA ♥♥♥♥♥ out and make playable wonder... And then make 10 years testing of income pleasures if someone think of it in showbusiness era of TVs or similar advertisements pleasures if allowed due security enlightment...

[Blitzwing]

Originally posted by Jarisbjörn:

Originally posted by Blitzwing:

The Industry Standard Experts and Experienced teams do recommend
at least 6 month beta.

It is written under the assumption that you are developing a completely new software from the groundup and have to account basic software stability issues. And not a game in a established genre and a professional game engine.

And even they don't recommend "at least 6 month beta", they recommend at least 4 weeks. Which is easy to do with almost 6 months left before release.

They also say you should have around 100-300 beta tester and not to get too many.
Kind of incongruent with your calls for an open beta.

Lastly, your suggestion that the devs should get their game "approved" by the testers is something you pulled completely out of your behind and is not in the testing guide you linked.
If followed it would lead to the game never getting released, as its consumer base is devided into multiple different camps with completely contradictory ideas what it should be like, that would never agree on one build.

I can't go into details, because it would break NDA.

Well let's take a look at recent flop, Industrial Annihilation
https://www.reddit.com/r/RealTimeStrategy/comments/1hbfqmr/ouch/

Again those are quotes for Industrial Annihilation

Originally posted by caster:

Extremely talented engineers without really a designer to make the game actually fun. Planetary Annihilation has the best actual software features ever for any RTS. Strategic zoom, awesome scale, amazing moddability, even spherical planets, even moving planets, space and surface units, instant replay, the list goes on. Beautiful software engineering work.

Yet, the actual warfare using their combat units ingame is... boring. Almost an afterthought on the actual tactics and strategic depth, but look we have PLANET SMASHING! And then when people got bored of that gimmick they went right back to now we have TITANS LOOK HOW HUGE THEY ARE!

It's really a shame that that fantastic engine was used to deploy such a weak strategy game. Propped up by the shallowest of gimmicks that could have added so much to the game, but never did.

Originally posted by Nykidemus:

I've seen teams of engineers often say that a game designer is the least important member of the team, and that they just don't need one.

They are deeply wrong.

Originally posted by Ltb1993:

Yup couldn't help but think units in the game were bland. You could win by spitting out basic units. No unit felt particularly meaningful in the role it was intended for and terrain as meaningless. It came down to spitting out as many units as possible, who ever could spit out more won. Making tactics irrelevant. Just smash blobs of units together.

Very unlike supcom fa. We're units were fragile in a similar way but over effective when positioned correctly. Glass cannons you could use to great effect. Cheap units to harass and tie up. Bigger badder units to pierce a certain point and hit the economy. Constant playing both wide and deep

They are on point for any RTS ever. You see just assemble a game is for RTS not enough, you need to adjust, rearrange and tune things, to get it done right and it needs time.

An RTS is like a gear clock mechanism, there are many little parts and they must fit together or themachine won't work as expected.

It happens like all the time, they overlook a tiny wheel and suddenly the whole game isn't fun. Its a simple feedback for any RTS, take the time, you need and have to.

[Jaris B.]

Originally posted by Blitzwing:

It happens like all the time, they overlook a tiny wheel and suddenly the whole game isn't fun.

Well, I've played the Beta too, and the game IS definitely fun. But I am afraid it won't be for much longer if they change it too much.

It's not like RTS never get optimized to death. I've seen it happen. YOU've seen it happen (later versions of C&C3!)

And it is not like players have some magical insight into the games that devs lack. They are often wrong and seldom agree with one another and lack the broader view on the games' systems that the developer have. Act of Aggression Reboot Edition is a very good example of an RTS that got made worse because the devs caved in to player demands.

[puppet74]

its way to early to talk about devs ruining a game before its out. The games changed so much since they first showed it off, and we still have awhile to go before release. Let alone no one has seen how the 3rd faction plays, so once that faction gets added into mp, thats an entire new world to balance around.

I think the core thing for an RTS to get right at release is a fun game, great music, cool world and units. The competitive side needs to come later. As soon as the focus for mp and balance, nerfs ext are put as the focus over the things i mentioned is the min the game loses its identity and focus on just being a fun rts.

CnC was great because of its focus on sp first, mp evolved overtime from players and ofc later modding scene, custom tounys ran by the community with there own rules ext. Thats kinda how things need to evolve. So many rts have died because they focused on mp and competitive stuff first and totally let the sp side of things slip by the wayside.

I think there doing a pretty good job with the focus of SP, setting up a world, lore, focus on great music ext. Let people find a game they love the feel of first then get focus that mp after. I think the devs just want the mp in a decent by not perfect place at release, and the work can come after. If the players love the game they will stick with it.

[Reveneram VII]

While I am very excited about this game due to its fairly obvious feel to Command & Conquer, I still am tempering my expectations since Slipgate Ironworks has produced some pretty bad games recently like "Phantom Fury."

[Xan84]

Can't wait but I will wait hoping its going to be a good one.

[Jack_Burton]

Awesome news! I'm glad this finally got a release date. Is it a full release or early access?

[wayward]

Full release :)

[HE1NZ]

Originally posted by wayward:

Full release :)

Will it include all campaigns or some stuff is still reserved for later? I read that somewhere.