Playtesters you should be ashamed

[william bowen]

This is the last time I will post and I know that will make you happy unless something is done right away with the AI, where were the playtesters in this farce, I invaded Canada and the Boston area with an overwhelming force and was moving to attack New York and guess what the allied armies started to do around Washington? They boarded troop ships and headed for England to invade. I continued my march on Washington and they landed in England with 4 armies and 6 more coming, in the meantime the american navy was attacking my warships instead of my very vulnerable troop ships, If you playtesters are offended by my comments you should be, you did not do what was required of you which was to straighten out this mess before it cost us stupid people money. Most players found terrible botches in hours what you looked at for weeks and didn't see, seriously shame on you and shame on us for buying this so called game.

Willy

[Iron Ranger]

"I will have to write'em down and forward them to Hubert. Let's see

1. Good AI

2. Solitaire play is a must.

thx, this will surely put sc2 right on track."

Posted at the end of a SC1 'event', well where they right?

[Scrogdog]

Ok... that reply made me chuckle.

[John Hugo]

Aw c'mon give poor Hubert a break, it's a great game against another person. And way better than SC1. In SC2 you can now evacuate Ireland after invading it. It was worth buying the new game just for that!

[SeaMonkey]

Not to mention, that now, Rockets are transportable.

[GravesRegistration]

-it's a great game against another person-

this is all fine and good except that there appears to be NO sc2 players anywhere around.

[Sombra]

Originally posted by GravesRegistration:

-it's a great game against another person-

this is all fine and good except that there appears to be NO sc2 players anywhere around.

Soccer world championship? German players only yesterday got updated to 1.02.

[pzgndr]

Most players found terrible botches in hours what you looked at for weeks and didn't see

Oh my. Where to start? Willy, your complaints appear directed against the AI, which was the last thing to be implemented. Frankly, we did not have weeks on end to thoroughly playtest the AI and fine-tune it into a work of brilliance. Even if Hubert had delayed SC2 release for a couple more months, I doubt it would still meet your lofty expectations for playing against a machine rather than a live opponent.

As it was, we playtested to verify things worked. Not that they all worked to perfection, but that most everything was functional. You may complain if you wish, but at least you and everyone else has a fun game in hand today to complain about, rather than checking here every day to see when SC2 might be released as a v1.0 with a "perfect" AI.

[Major Spinello]

Actually, after I´ve read about the imminent release of SC2 and also knew that the AI was *just* implemented, I worried immensely. Compared to this, I was rather surprised, when I got the game, to find that the AI worked the modest way it did at all!

Anyway, we were told that the thing is that the AI is something of an open project. And as long as this promise is kept I´m happy. If HC keeps on working on improving the AIs basic features, and if he also continues to export pertinent variables for our AI-modders to do some nifty scripting with, then I am actually confident that the AI will eventually act and react in a reasonable way in most scenarios and will - in this respect - leave other AIs (like from "World at War" or HOI) far behind.

[william bowen]

Originally posted by pzgndr:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> Most players found terrible botches in hours what you looked at for weeks and didn't see

Oh my. Where to start? Willy, your complaints appear directed against the AI, which was the last thing to be implemented. Frankly, we did not have weeks on end to thoroughly playtest the AI and fine-tune it into a work of brilliance. Even if Hubert had delayed SC2 release for a couple more months, I doubt it would still meet your lofty expectations for playing against a machine rather than a live opponent.

As it was, we playtested to verify things worked. Not that they all worked to perfection, but that most everything was functional. You may complain if you wish, but at least you and everyone else has a fun game in hand today to complain about, rather than checking here every day to see when SC2 might be released as a v1.0 with a "perfect" AI. </font>

[Blashy]

Originally posted by william bowen:

This is the last time I will post and I know that will make you happy unless something is done right away with the AI, where were the playtesters in this farce, I invaded Canada and the Boston area with an overwhelming force and was moving to attack New York and guess what the allied armies started to do around Washington? They boarded troop ships and headed for England to invade. I continued my march on Washington and they landed in England with 4 armies and 6 more coming, in the meantime the american navy was attacking my warships instead of my very vulnerable troop ships, If you playtesters are offended by my comments you should be, you did not do what was required of you which was to straighten out this mess before it cost us stupid people money. Most players found terrible botches in hours what you looked at for weeks and didn't see, seriously shame on you and shame on us for buying this so called game.

Willy

I gather you have no been keeping track here. If you had you would have known that the AI was implemented 3-4 weeks prior to release.

And we were still testing other areas of the game NOT just the AI.

As long as Hubert is happy with the work I've done and of that I know he is, then I do not have to explain myself to anyone.

[ChrisND]

No worries william, when Edwin and I are done with the AI you will have a challenge indeed.

[rleete]

If Hubert gives half the dedication and support he did for SC1, then you'll get your wish. The community is coming out with it's own scrip/unit mods to improve things, too. I'm convinced that as time goes on, things will be tweaked to provide the ideal balance of chalenge and fun that keeps us coming back.

You can't expect the AI to be able to magically counter every option. But attacking the playtesters is simply crass. You pull a gamey move like that with a human opponent, and you'll get your a$$ handed to you.

[ChrisND]

Not to mention, this game was designed/made by basically ONE person. Think about it.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Not to mention, this game was designed/made by basically ONE person. Think about it.

That still blows me away. He must have game companies knocking at his door.

But when you make your own money, why have a boss! lol.

[TaoJah]

I don't like bashing software/game testers, I was one in my younger days and I can tell you that it's not easy.

But... The OP has a point.

Saying things like "most everything was functional" and "it will never reach your lofty goals" and "the AI can't counter every option" is all very well to hide behind.

But if you don't see that D-Day is missing in a WWII simulation of the european front, you didn't test well. Even the biggest fan has to admit that.

This, however, is not the fault of the playtesters alone. Whoever decided that the AI had to be tested in only 3 weeks is "to blame" too.

[ June 15, 2006, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: TaoJah ]

[Major Spinello]

Actually such decisions are often made because Christmas is around the corner or money is running out. I suspect there were factors like this involved in the decision to suddenly rush the release of SC2. Sometimes (like with Star Wars: Knights of the Old Republic II) doing that leads to a total desaster. If an Adventure or RPG is unfinished because the story-line is not fully implemented, then no patch will ever save it.

It´s different with wargames, though. I know, I know: we are customers in the first place, and NOT a second wave of beta-testers. Still, if the company is dedicated (like Paradox or Battlefront and Matrixgames), then a somewhat "raw" release can evolve to greatness much faster than if the game would have stayed within the confines of a small group of beta-testers for another six months. That´s fine with me, and over the years I came to expect and accept that.

[Rolend]

Well I think there are some problems with the basic amphib opps as stated in the Sealion thread. However when a human player does something that I consider gamey to start with, like the Germans invading the Americas, even though it is possible with the current game engine, then don't be surprised by the results.

I think the AI does need some work but to expect ANY AI to play with the flexibility of a human is just expecting too much. Heck IBM took 10 years and millions of dollars to setup a dedicated computer to be able to beat a chess champion, and they really didn't even use 'AI' to do it, they just gave the computer the ability to look at enough possible moves in advance.

Lastly your brash and down right rude tone won't win you friends here and I dare say will get your concerns ignored by the developers and testers. You do have some valid complaints but I think you would get a lot more support and even changes to the game if you take a more civil approach to your post.

[william bowen]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

No worries william, when Edwin and I are done with the AI you will have a challenge indeed.

Thank you Normal Dude I will appreciate anything you and Edwin will do I am sure of that. Maybe I was a little rough on the playtesters, but only because I was hoping that this would be a great game not only in graphics but in playability not only against a human but against the computer, but Blashy's comment about it was only 3 weeks to go when the AI was implemented is not my problem, more time should have been allowed to fix the glaring errors, maybe the little ones could have been fixed later. I believe that the pushing to have this game released asap by the players on the forums and SC1 players caused some of this. I am a dedicated COD2 player and I guess I was hoping to have a game wean me off COD2 and it did not happen. I will do no more negative comments out of courtesy to Hubert, and Normal Dude if you make the AI to tough and I can't win I will probably complain about that. Get to work and fix it up PLEASE!

Willy

[jon_j_rambo]

All you needed was Yoda. Told you this game was going to get busted in 3-days "by my litle green friend".

[william bowen]

Originally posted by Rolend:

Well I think there are some problems with the basic amphib opps as stated in the Sealion thread. However when a human player does something that I consider gamey to start with, like the Germans invading the Americas, even though it is possible with the current game engine, then don't be surprised by the results.

I think the AI does need some work but to expect ANY AI to play with the flexibility of a human is just expecting too much. Heck IBM took 10 years and millions of dollars to setup a dedicated computer to be able to beat a chess champion, and they really didn't even use 'AI' to do it, they just gave the computer the ability to look at enough possible moves in advance.

Lastly your brash and down right rude tone won't win you friends here and I dare say will get your concerns ignored by the developers and testers. You do have some valid complaints but I think you would get a lot more support and even changes to the game if you take a more civil approach to your post.

Rolend I stand corrected and will not put any more negative comments on the forums, I am not a rude person I just had to many expectations for this game and I was disappointed and I took it out on the playtesters and I will take a more civil tone on the forums in the future.

Willy

[Rolend]

Ok Willy no problem and heck as far as negative post goes please don't stop doing that, I do a lot of that myself The only way to make the game better is to post the negative things, they have to know what is broke if they are to fix it. So when you find strange things the AI might do jump on in here and let them know.

[rleete]

Originally posted by william bowen:

I will take a more civil tone on the forums in the future.

A point in your favor, to be sure.

[Yogi]

I wouldn't blame the playtesters. I also understand that a game can have great value even without a decent AI. However, I do think that this discussion does once again show that AI is important to computer gaming. Too often we get on this "dispute" between people who don't give a hoot about AI and those of us who mainly play against the AI. I just want to say once again that it doesn't have to be one or the other. The game should be great played against others and great against the AI as well.

Almost all computer game manufacturers are missing the opportunity to capture what may be the biggest customer base out there, especially when it comes to strategy/war games. That base is the solitare player. If a company can get the reputation of creating the best AI around, there will be many ready to buy each and every release of their products. I assume that making such an AI is tedious and time consuming and therefore expensive. But I for one would be willing to pay extra for the feature. Picture SC2 head to head version $47 and SC2 including extensive AI $60. I would pay the extra.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Yogi:

Picture SC2 head to head version $47 and SC2 including extensive AI $60. I would pay the extra.

I think that would suck. Major publishers would use it as an excuse to jack the prices. You'd never know if it was worth getting until the game had already been out for 1/2 a year.

Now, if you had the all inclusive AI version at $47, and a head-to-head only version at $30, I could see it. But, I still would buy the "complete" version of just about anything.

I play HTH with most games I buy, but I also like the AI for a quick romp, or to try out different strategies. No way I'd ever go for a no AI version of anything.