Krull Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 If people responded to the negative feedback in a civilised manner there wouldn't be all the BS. The box of which i speak is abstract. It has a multiplayer tab in-game that does not function. Many people have this problem from what i see. Given that playing against the AI doesn't really fly i thought i'd cut out the problem where i could & have at it with a human player. But i can't do that either. In my opinion that means the title is pretty flawed & unplayable. In multiplyer totally unworkable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBob Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Originally posted by Krull: If people responded to the negative feedback in a civilised manner there wouldn't be all the BS. The box of which i speak is abstract. It has a multiplayer tab in-game that does not function. Many people have this problem from what i see. Given that playing against the AI doesn't really fly i thought i'd cut out the problem where i could & have at it with a human player. But i can't do that either. In my opinion that means the title is pretty flawed & unplayable. In multiplyer totally unworkable. Realizing of course that even in a multi-player game you'll still find the AI spotting, firing at and hitting targets it can't actually see. Cunningly crafted ambushes? On what's nothing more than a snooker table with terrain features that are purely abstract and, to all intents and purposes, totally transparent? The only thing left that continues to beggar my belief is how anyone can defend this game for longer than the time it takes to play a single battle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanss Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Originally posted by Krull: If people responded to the negative feedback in a civilised manner there wouldn't be all the BS. The box of which i speak is abstract. It has a multiplayer tab in-game that does not function. Many people have this problem from what i see. Given that playing against the AI doesn't really fly i thought i'd cut out the problem where i could & have at it with a human player. But i can't do that either. In my opinion that means the title is pretty flawed & unplayable. In multiplyer totally unworkable. Why is it that playing against the AI doesnt fly then? What is the problem with the game for you? The box it wasnt it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 As BillyBob says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chanss Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Originally posted by Krull: As BillyBob says. You cant even specify whats lacking in the game for you then, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodstar44 Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 The only thing left that continues to beggar my belief is how anyone can defend this game for longer than the time it takes to play a single battle. ******* Maybe because it is fun? BTW, I will point you and other whiners to one title called Hearts of Iron 1.0 PLEASE! Just don't patch Hearts of Iron 1 1.0 and then try this... march with your armies across Maginot line hehe and watch how they cut through those imprenegable french fortress. Gee guys maybe 1C should make a pacta conventa with you? and say to maybe quit whining and give them few month. In the meantime play snooker or tennis or phone that girl you promised to take her for a coffe LOL Mario Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted April 29, 2007 Share Posted April 29, 2007 Originally posted by chanss: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Krull: As BillyBob says. You cant even specify whats lacking in the game for you then, or what? </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Krull Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Originally posted by BillyBob: Realizing of course that even in a multi-player game you'll still find the AI spotting, firing at and hitting targets it can't actually see. Sure. But if we both getting screwed on an eaqual basis it brings some parity no matter how warped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBob Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Originally posted by Krull: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by BillyBob: Realizing of course that even in a multi-player game you'll still find the AI spotting, firing at and hitting targets it can't actually see. Sure. But if we both getting screwed on an eaqual basis it brings some parity no matter how warped. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Originally posted by Rak: Oh, the game? I like it as it is. It can only get better. If I didn't, I would be elsewhere rather than wasting my time here. Even BF people stopped posting here. [/QB]We stopped replying (for the moment) because a) we're busy working on the various real issues and bugs. That has top priority to get those who cannot launch the game or experience frequent problems to get up and running; and because there is little to reply to. To those wo rant, there is nothing one can say. Obviously we don't think that the game sucks, or we would not have published it. It is not Combat Mission, and I don't think we ever created the impression that it would be. To those who actually do raise some points - yup. Points noted. On some, we disagree, on others, we definitely agree and intend to do something about them. I am surprised people are so quickly to forget that we (and 1C) actually do care about constructive criticism. One such point for example, is multiplayer. I am the first to admit that it can be improved. It's not broken like someone here said, but it does require way too much fiddeling around with the settings for some users to work. MP is one of the points high on the list, but there are a number of other gameplay issues as well, which we want to change. We have a lot of things planned for TOW. We're also not afraid of the negative posters as you can see from the fact that we are not banning left and right or deleting useless rants, like most publishers would do. I have yet to see any of the few loud complainers to actually acknowledge this. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillyBob Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 I'll acknowledge it. Members (paying customers) who defend their opinion, as it refers to the problems with this game, are now being banned for fighting their corner against the fan-boy mob. Shameful and disgraceful. [ May 01, 2007, 02:14 AM: Message edited by: BillyBob ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted April 30, 2007 Share Posted April 30, 2007 Satisfaction with the game (or not) is no factor when banning someone. If someone who likes the game would start calling others names he would get warned and then banned, just like anyone else. Long-time members have been banned by us as often or maybe even more often than new members in the past. Sometimes a good track record means that we issue an extra warning, but that hasn't kept too many of those that went ballistic at one point or another from getting banned anyway. People posting constructive criticism do not get their posts labelled as rants. People who do not stop posting the same stuff over and over, in threads that talk about entirely different things, like you did on more than one accasion , do. Martin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts