Yeah, no. This is trash.

[Muse Snooze]

It's a cold day in hell when I have more hope that Microsoft will put AoE devs to work expanding SC2 content like they do for AoE2DE than I have hope this game will be any good at all. Plus, F2P online only? Cursed from the get go.

The entire flow of the game is terrible, pathfinding is pretty bad, there's nothing explaining any mechanics ingame either. White health? Is that a shield? Why is it called something so generic?

[Yskas]

yeah well that's like your opinion man

[pie75]

The game will have a Campaign and Editor at launch. Whether that's online-only, probably not, but we'll see. But certainly not F2P only.

[Muse Snooze]

Originally posted by Yskas:

yeah well that's like your opinion man

It's not my ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ opinion that the pathfinding is bad, it FACTUALLY is bad. It actively fights with me worse than any other RTS since and including WC3, a game over 20 years old now. No excuses.

[Muse Snooze]

Originally posted by pie75:

The game will have a Campaign and Editor at launch. Whether that's online-only, probably not, but we'll see. But certainly not F2P only.

maybe I'll play custom maps that undo the godawful system they have now for unit creation.

[BeefyBearded]

Originally posted by Muse Snooze:

Originally posted by Yskas:

yeah well that's like your opinion man

It's not my ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ opinion that the pathfinding is bad, it FACTUALLY is bad. It actively fights with me worse than any other RTS since and including WC3, a game over 20 years old now. No excuses.

do you understand what *beta* means?

[D]

Public beta =/= alpha.

[DRFX]

It needs way more refining :v

[D]

Typically if you're going to release a public beta you'd be mostly testing network issues for launch or severe bugs/FPS issues that might not have been caught at the QA process. I'm not sure why people expect another game. In the vast majority of cases what you see is what you get, but the chrome has been buffed to shine.

[Muse Snooze]

Originally posted by D:

Typically if you're going to release a public beta you'd be mostly testing network issues for launch or severe bugs that might not have been caught at the QA process. I'm not sure why people expect another game. In the vast majority of cases what you see is what you get, but the chrome has been buffed to shine.

Agreed. Just tried vanguard, at least they make units more normally, but it's all so dry. SC2 feels more exciting still. I'm going to go finish grinding out Alarak's prestiges, thanks

[BeefyBearded]

Originally posted by D:

Public beta =/= alpha.

No, but this could be an old alpha build thats stable and being used during its beta for said testing and bug fixing, thats why theres still units being made, models being changed and an entire faction about to come out. Be real lol

[Muse Snooze]

Originally posted by BeefyBearded:

Originally posted by D:

Public beta =/= alpha.

No, but this could be an old alpha build thats stable and being used during its beta for said testing and bug fixing, thats why theres still units being made, models being changed and an entire faction about to come out. Be real lol

why would they use a worse, older build for public testing, that's literally never happened for any game whatsoever. Be real? BE REAL?!

[D]

Originally posted by BeefyBearded:

Originally posted by D:

Public beta =/= alpha.

No, but this could be an old alpha build thats stable and being used during its beta for said testing and bug fixing, thats why theres still units being made, models being changed and an entire faction about to come out. Be real lol

I've heard this argument well over 100 times throughout my life. In almost every case I've been let down. I can't recall a single beta that I've played where the game was vastly different on launch, or at least significantly differing from it's public beta release. The point of a public beta is to stress test, add free QA hours (thanks free testers) and show your product to your potential consumers.

Gaming population is already stretched. There are so many games to choose from nowadays. If you don't make a big impact with your public release you're going to be fighting an uphill battle. For example, my short test on the game already tarnished my thoughts on it. I most likely will never play it again. That said, if it's f2p then it's not as big of a deal as if it were a paid product.

Not trying to attack you or anything, I get what you're saying, but I think you need a solid foundation before going for a public test and this doesn't seem to be it.

[Muse Snooze]

Originally posted by BeefyBearded:

Originally posted by Muse Snooze:

why would they use a worse, older build for public testing, that's literally never happened for any game whatsoever. Be real? BE REAL?!

never happened for any game whatsoever lmaoooo

Its okay to not know anything about gamedev, its not okay to be willfully ignorant and rude about it.

Be real.

I spend way too much time specifically researching game dev, I live with a game dev, I am also a game dev. No. Don't tell me ♥♥♥♥.

[BeefyBearded]

Originally posted by D:

Originally posted by BeefyBearded:

No, but this could be an old alpha build thats stable and being used during its beta for said testing and bug fixing, thats why theres still units being made, models being changed and an entire faction about to come out. Be real lol

I've heard this argument well over 100 times throughout my life. In almost every case I've been let down. I can't recall a single beta that I've played where the game was vastly different on launch, or at least significantly differing from it's public beta release. The point of a public beta is to stress test, add free QA hours (thanks free testers) and show your product to your potential consumers.

Gaming population is already stretched. There are so many games to choose from nowadays. If you don't make a big impact with your public release you're going to be fighting an uphill battle. For example, my short test on the game already tarnished my thoughts on it. I most likely will never play it again. That said, if it's f2p then it's not as big of a deal as if it were a paid product.

Not trying to attack you or anything, I get what you're saying, but I think you need a solid foundation before going for a public test and this doesn't seem to be it.

I'd normally agree with your last sentiment, sadly even tho the company broke an insane record of funding from crowd sourcing we dont know whats going on behind the scenes with the publisher(s), theyre likely getting close to a deadline and need the extra push for polish without spending the money.

Sad truth tho is that I dont think theyll have the ability for 64 player games to go over well, thats for sure. But Ik without a doubt this is an old alpha build being used for testing. Maybe you havent seen this go over well publicly but this is an long time practice in the industry, usually used with QA companies being outsourced to (thats how you get leaks, btw, when they dont use old ♥♥♥♥♥♥ builds.)

[D]

Originally posted by BeefyBearded:

Originally posted by D:

I've heard this argument well over 100 times throughout my life. In almost every case I've been let down. I can't recall a single beta that I've played where the game was vastly different on launch, or at least significantly differing from it's public beta release. The point of a public beta is to stress test, add free QA hours (thanks free testers) and show your product to your potential consumers.

Gaming population is already stretched. There are so many games to choose from nowadays. If you don't make a big impact with your public release you're going to be fighting an uphill battle. For example, my short test on the game already tarnished my thoughts on it. I most likely will never play it again. That said, if it's f2p then it's not as big of a deal as if it were a paid product.

Not trying to attack you or anything, I get what you're saying, but I think you need a solid foundation before going for a public test and this doesn't seem to be it.

I'd normally agree with your last sentiment, sadly even tho the company broke an insane record of funding from crowd sourcing we dont know whats going on behind the scenes with the publisher(s), theyre likely getting close to a deadline and need the extra push for polish without spending the money.

Sad truth tho is that I dont think theyll have the ability for 64 player games to go over well, thats for sure. But Ik without a doubt this is an old alpha build being used for testing. Maybe you havent seen this go over well publicly but this is an long time practice in the industry, usually used with QA companies being outsourced to (thats how you get leaks, btw, when they dont use old ♥♥♥♥♥♥ builds.)

I would be pleasantly surprised if I was wrong, because a SC co-op with NEW updates is exactly what I want. I want the game to succeed, but what I've seen so far has be a major let down and not something that I would personally financially contribute to at this point.

I guess the big point that I'm making is that I see no reason to play this over Starcraft 2 and I don't see that changing in any near-future development time. Again, happy to be wrong here since I don't know the ins/outs of the devs, but I've been around this 'beta bush' too many times.