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. smile.gif

[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! :D

[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. tongue.gif 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>[/QUOTE]Pzgndr your explanation is acceptable but some one has to take the heat for this unfinished game. We all paid good money for a pleasing looking game but a little [maybe a lot] unplayable against the computer, my complaint is against the AI which I now firmly believe cannot be done right as in a chess game which I realize has less squares to worry about. I said before how they botched up Third Reich so bad that no one has attempted to do it again. I am tired of hearing play a human that is bulldunk and you know it. Pleasing graphics does not make a good game playability does. Those comments I made about attacking England instead of defending the US are right on you should have seen those mistakes right away, absolutley no excuse of any kind is acceptable on some of these gaffs. Lofty expectations, that's not real fair Pzgndr for telling it like it is.

Willy

[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.

[Normal Dude]

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

[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.

[Normal Dude]

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. smile.gif 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 smile.gif 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.

[Yogi]

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.
--------- No way I'd ever go for a no AI version of anything.I understand rleete. But the thought of paying more for AI may be what is needed to get a good one. And it goes with the rest of my post, "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." A company that charges extra and puts out a lousy AI will be avoided.

The point is that too many, the AI is very important. In the ideal world we would be given that great AI automatically at no extra charge. That just hasn't been happening so far. (at least very seldom) If some incentive to create a good AI is needed before a company puts the needed effort in, at least we might get a few games worth a little extra.

I agree that a no AI version would not be very attractive, I was thinking more of an enhanced AI version, and only if worth it.

Maybe AI expansion packs would have a place? If making a great AI becomes profitable - some one will make it. Sounds like, "If you build it, they will come."

[ June 15, 2006, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Yogi ]

[Agamemnon]

I said before how they botched up Third Reich so bad that no one has attempted to do it again. I think of SC1 and SC2 as Third Reich, only better. That was my first imppression of SC1. As far as the AI being bad, I expect that. Most games don't have a very good AI. It's a rare game that has an AI that can come close being really good. BTW I have not tried the AI. I just felt it wouldn't be very good from the beginning.

[rleete]

Originally posted by Yogi:
And it goes with the rest of my post, "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." Which is why we're all here, and Hubert has a ready market. The dedicated support, and the desire to give us the best bang for the buck keep us coming back. So, in that you are right.

But the no AI version had better be significantly cheaper, or I don't see it being a good seller. Basically, if I gotta pay extra for the AI, it had better be a hell of an opponent. Otherwise, the game will become essentially a HTH only one, and that's not a business model I'd care to support.

[Exel]

You do realize that the big releases of big companies are not big hits because of having great AIs? They make big because they have big money behind them - or for the same reason fail big.

I can point out a great many hugely successful RTS games that have flat out awful AIs. Making a good AI is difficult and as a result expensive. A game with millions poured in can't be delayed a couple of months just for a competitive AI - no one buys a game for a good AI. It is far cheaper to just make the AI cheat, which is what 99% of games do. SC2 AI does not cheat unless you make it (exp bonus).

[Yogi]

You do realize that the big releases of big companies are not big hits because of having great AIs? Yes I do, but perhaps no one has really tried to find the market.

Making a good AI is difficult and as a result expensive.Yes as I put in my post. That is why I am willing to accept higher cost for a better AI.

However, the higher cost may not be needed, as I still feel that strong AI development will in the long run result in more copies sold. Until the "long run" comes through, maybe the extra cost would be the incentive the companies need.

[Dulak]

I'm quite dissappointed too with the AI ...

Now I'm not blaming the testers persay but IMO there did seem to be alot of time devoted to mutiplayer while it appears most people are playing this game single player.

I wanted a game where if played on the hardest setting it would be very difficult to beat. I wanted something challenging.

I wouldnt have bought this game if I knew that the AI wouldnt be that challenging

[jon_j_rambo]

What did I tell you guys? The A.I. doesn't count. It's impossible to program a good one with a new game that has complex strategies. This isn't chess with regression solutions.

"Let it go, that mission is over" -Col. Troutman

-Legend

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
It's impossible to program a good one with a new game that has complex strategies.We're not asking for an AI that does complex strategies, we're asking for an AI that does a D-Day.

And, no, sending 5 US troops without a HQ to the UK, without any protective ships and the other 30 US units just staying for ever around Washington does NOT count as a D-Day !

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Dulak:
I'm quite dissappointed too with the AI ...

Now I'm not blaming the testers persay but IMO there did seem to be alot of time devoted to mutiplayer while it appears most people are playing this game single player.

I wanted a game where if played on the hardest setting it would be very difficult to beat. I wanted something challenging.

I wouldnt have bought this game if I knew that the AI wouldnt be that challenging Stick around, it will improve by alot.

Try some of the mods at cmmods.com some impressive scripting in there.

[jon_j_rambo]

@ToJo --- How do you expect the AI to DDAY if you can't do it properly as a human? The USA is a joke. No tech, no units, no cash, no supply, no nothing.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
@ToJo --- How do you expect the AI to DDAY if you can't do it properly as a human? The USA is a joke. No tech, no units, no cash, no supply, no nothing. Keep working at it JJR, one day you'll figure out how the game is played.

I can't believe a redneck has no clue how to play his own country. I guess that is watching too much fox news does to someone's brain, turns it to mush :rolleyes: .

[Normal Dude]

Yeah, like CNN or any other news program is any better.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:
Yeah, like CNN or any other news program is any better. Hehe, agreed. But Fauxnews is the king of misinformation.

[Major Spinello]

When I was still living in Cal, I was at times desperate because of all those ****ty US news formats on TV - well, at least the print media with San Francisco Chronicle and New York Times were up to world standard. Oh, and I had to watch Mexican channells to see some decent soccer matches too ...

[Normal Dude]

SF Chronicle and The New York Times are the biggest hack jobs on the planet... even worse than CNN.... did I mention I hate the media? :D

BTW, what is world standard? Is it a standard program format for a news channel?

[Blashy]

World standard means doing your own research and making your OWN opinion.

Report what happened with NO bias (it use to exist).

[ June 16, 2006, 04:57 PM: Message edited by: Blashy ]

[Normal Dude]

It USED to exist? ;)

[Major Spinello]

What Blashy said. New York Times do their own research and articles (well, at least partly) and they always seemed rather unbiased to me.

[Normal Dude]

To each his own I guess.

[jon_j_rambo]

@AntiUSA crowd --- Are you kidding me about the USA? Do the math. Add up the costs for historically correct USA. Good luck buying 82nd, 101st, Patton, Ike, Tanks, Armor, Fighters, Bombers, etc. The MMPs aren't there! And think of the MMPs you'll need for technology.

It's a joke,
-Legend

[Blashy]

I don't have a problem whatsoever having those troops and tech pretty much accross the board with many of them maxed out.

2 hqs, 2afs, 2bombers, 4armies, paratrooper and a tank easily for Dday, all with top notch tech. Most likely a few more but I can not remember.

And possibly 3+ other units in the queue.

That is over half a million men landing in one turn, seems good enough to me.

[TaoJah]

Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
@ToJo --- How do you expect the AI to DDAY if you can't do it properly as a human? The USA is a joke. No tech, no units, no cash, no supply, no nothing. Oh you CAN do it properly as a human.

Instead of buying 35 level zero armies and fighters, you can invest in tech, get your armies to level 3/5/2 (or 3/3/2, that's enough), your planes to 5/5 (or 4/3) and land with 10 armies and two HQ, leaving only about 5 troops in the US.

But the AI simply does not do it, it does a "D-Day" with 5 troops and leaves all the others in the US.

You should toggle Fog of War off at the end of the game, it's really depressing.

[Dan Fenton]

Three cheers for the play testers!

Play testing is a hard job. Playing the finishing product is a lot of fun for us. But that isn’t what play testers get to do. They work with the raw unfinished product for many months with all sorts of flaws and bugs that we never saw because they did.

On top of that, most play testers seldom get anything more than a hearty thank you from the designer and a free game. That is their reward after months and months of work. Most play testers also have jobs and a family along with other responsibilities. Play testers give up months and months of fun time to do this work unselfishly so that we can have a better product and more fun.

With all of the campaigns along with all of the scenarios that they had to test from both sides with all of the different setting choices how could they possibly be expected to find every flaw in the AI in less than one month?

The 1.02 version of Strategic Command 2 (SC2) is far better that the fully patched version of Strategic Command (SC). Have people forgotten the Air Fleet dominance problem of SC? That has been fully fixed. What about the U-Boats being like fish in a barrel to be shot in that little pond of the Atlantic in SC? It has been fixed and we can have a real Battle of the Atlantic now. What about the tech issues of SC? Remember the non-consumable research point issues and the miraculous instant upgrading of all units? That’s fixed along with many other improvements in the basic design of SC2. I liked this game so much that I bought a copy for me and one for my e-mail opponent.

I have discovered that I can accomplish a lot more in life by treating people with respect than by complaining at them. When we have issues with SC2, if we present them in a non-hostile manner Hubert and his play testers will be a lot more willing to address them.

[Blashy]

Originally posted by TaoJah:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by jon_j_rambo:
@ToJo --- How do you expect the AI to DDAY if you can't do it properly as a human? The USA is a joke. No tech, no units, no cash, no supply, no nothing. Oh you CAN do it properly as a human.

Instead of buying 35 level zero armies and fighters, you can invest in tech, get your armies to level 3/5/2 (or 3/3/2, that's enough), your planes to 5/5 (or 4/3) and land with 10 armies and two HQ, leaving only about 5 troops in the US.

But the AI simply does not do it, it does a "D-Day" with 5 troops and leaves all the others in the US.

You should toggle Fog of War off at the end of the game, it's really depressing. </font>[/QUOTE]You only need to leave 1 corp on Washington. Ship everything. You have 100 million citizens ready to take arms should anyone be foolish enough to land on US soil. The homeguard will pop up and take care of business.

[SeaMonkey]

Here! Here! An appropriate oratory Mr. Fenton, I applaud your observations.

See you pathetic humans, the truth does not evade all of you.

There still may be some hope for your species. ;)

[Hubert Cater]

William, if you must point fingers feel free to point them at me and not the beta testers as at the end of the day I am the one that is fully responsible for the end product.

[Iriemon]

Here! Here! An appropriate oratory Mr. Fenton, I applaud your observations.ditto that.