50 is the top victory setting?

[wolf1455]

It makes me rush everything, not really my cup of tea. Is there a chance that that can be increased or optionally removed? It is a solo game after all.

[Drenus]

i agree, either a option to manually set VP, or being able to play a domination only game

[spike]

+1

I agree. The basic game is solid and needs more features. A custom game setting would be excellent. Adding a map editor or Steamworks would be a killer.

Love the game. A Da Vinci Risk game is an inspired idea, if only they had run with it a bit more.

Can't complain too much though, considering I picked it up in the Humble Bundle.

[Drenus]

i didn't look at the dates on this forum, and it would sadly appear, that this is just a release & forget game, something that is sadly very common with this company

[Slitherine_Iain]

We have played with different settings for this but without the rush there is no gameplay. We could allow you to raise the victory point settings higher but in practice its dull and so we prevent players from doing it as we know that whatever the max setting is many players will choose even if its not fun. So currently there are no plans to raise it as it just isn't interesting.

A map editor would have been great but the game wasn't built in a way to support it so new maps are a huge amount of work and require coding.

The original release had just one map and in the many patches we released before coming to Steam the other 3 maps were added. Many of the game we release on Steam have been out for years already so if you want to get involved earlier you need to come direct to us.

We always support games for years after they release - far longer than is normal. Some of the smaller games don't need this long term support as the issues can be identified and fixed relatively early on. Other like War inn the East take years to get right and we're working on a major revision to that 5 years after its release and this certainly wont be the last update.

You can see all the patches we have released here:
http://www.matrixgames.com/products/latestdownloads.asp

On average we release 2 patches a week. In teh last month we've released patches for War in the Pacific (6 years old), Hannibal (5 years old) and Commander the Great War (3 years old). Obviously newer games get more patches but suggesting we dont support our games is not entirely true if you look at the facts!

[Drenus]

did you happen to look at the dates on this forum, or even this topic before you posted that load of BS?

you took a month to reply to this previouesly, in very vague terms, and now you suddenly show up again, 4 months later, claiming you support your games, and then you even have the balls to say you support Commander: TGW...........you took 7 MONTHS, to release 1 patch, that didn't fix much in the way of gameplay

im sorry to say, Slitherine has no idea of what proper support is

[LastResort]

just my two cents here, but ridiculing a developer isn't exactly going to help anyone at all. not all devs have huge budgets and teams. (i don't know all the details of this situation either, but just figured constructive criticism is far more useful than plain criticism.) anyway, to keep this reply short, i have to agree that alternate victory options of some sort would help. it's true that the game seems to be designed for relatively casual, relatively fast games.. but the combat aspects feel like they don't get to be used enough to be worth bothering with in my experience.. it may differ based on opponents and parts i haven't tried, since i just started last night, but for the game to be over before iirc turn 10, with 3 opponents, and 50 max victory points, it leaves me wanting to continue playing, rather than simply "game over, person with most points wins" despite it not necessarily being a "conquer game" it really focuses a lot on offense and defense construction and upgrades, and little opportunity to use them. anyway, i got carried away again, my point is, the game is fun, but ends far too soon to fully enjoy, imo. will keep testing though, to see if i missed something. if extra game length is possible via patching, then it would truly be fun. hope this made sense, and was encouraging at least.

[Drenus]

@Lastresort

if they are ''small'', perhaps they should focus on a few games, over pumping out as many as they can, which seems to be their current goal, and then milking most of them with DLC's

also, if you look at the forum for this game, can you honestly say it looks like they cared much about the game once it was released?, OP of this thread didn't get a responce, till a month later, when he made a second thread asking the same question

edit---

Slith does have a few good games, and they could do great, if they focused on quality, over quantity

[Slitherine_Iain]

We are a publisher not a developer and sometimes games do take longer to patch than we'd like because the development teams are small. Unfortunately we can't tell them how to prioritize their work, only report the issues and ask them to fix them. We're in almost daily contact with the Lordz about Commander. That games is a special case because they had some internal issues related to it that really threw them for a few months. We are expecting another Commander update any day now actually according to their programmer.

Edit - I have 7 mails about Commander just today :)

[Traksimuss]

I don't bear such negativity (except MP missing), but could you set up options of up to 100 points? We as players can try and decide do we want 100 or is it too much. I do think myself that 70-80 would be ideal for me.

[Slitherine_Iain]

The problem is that players tend to put things to the max value. The largest map, highest victory point setting etc and that's not the way the game plays well. If we did it we'd get a load of feedback requesting new features or changes to work with the longer games,. Its just not designed for it so to ensure the most people get the most out of the game we don't want to make the change.

[Minaro]

I am fairly sure most people that would even get this game would prefer playing on higher settings, but something definitely feels off if you're under the impression that more customization is a bad thing for a game. At the very least adding an option to play using "Domination" as the only victory condition (as in, play until only one player remains) would keep the game more interesting for a lot of people.
That said, I also second the notion of having an option to choose freely how many VPs you play until, on top of the existing ones. If you are so worried about it, adding a small notification of some sort when choosing how many VPs you want to play until that mentions something along the lines of "The game is balanced for games of 30-50 VP" should suffice.

[wolf1455]

I respect the devs opinion about the settings but as it is now I havent played it at all as it is not my way to play a strat game. Looks fine and all but to rush isnt intriguing enough for me.

[Drenus]

^^agree completly, the sole reason why i have 3 hours in this game, and not 50+, is because of forced rushing

[cuqeen]

Forced rushing? And VP=x100? Wow!!!! The way gamers think and suggest game changes and updates is unbelievable. And why should any developer rush to answer the "forced rushing" question, it does not look like a serious thing to answer.

[wolf1455]

:D