Beta Test & Release

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Tue Oct 27, 2009 5:45 pm

As we are approaching completion we will not be accepting any more beta testers for Field of Glory. Sorry if you did not get in this time!

In addition we're having a little trouble nailing down the last issues with the multiplayer server so we are going to have delay release for another week. Sorry to keep moving this back but we would rather release a polished game than have to patch on day 1. We're hoping this gives us enough time to get everything finished.

honestabe · Post by **honestabe** » Wed Oct 28, 2009 11:59 pm

Another week? Damn another week! I'm tired of these extended weeks I don't give a #&$& about multiplayer and I doubt 90% of those who are going to buy it do, probably an even higher percentage than 90% don't care...release it already. I wish developers would be more like Stardock you notice they don't cater to multiplayers and that's probably why they sell 100's of thousands of copies of games like GalCiv2. {G}

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:17 am

The multiplayer has really increased the volume of feedback we have from Beta testers so has been great - but this itelsf brings more issues to resolve. This will all help make single player a much better game. Multiplayer is really unique in FoG - you should check it out. You dont have to connect, you play your turn offline. I was surprised how well it works as generally I prefer single player games but I find myself waiting for the MP turns to come back to me.

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:36 am

honestabe wrote:I'm tired of these extended weeks I don't give a #&$& about multiplayer and I doubt 90% of those who are going to buy it do, probably an even higher percentage than 90% don't care...

So far beta testing has proved the opposite. It's much, much more fun to play against another human rather than against the computer. Not a knock on the single player by any means but the unpredictability and cleverness of a human opponent is a much more interesting challenge. Hope this doesn't violate my NDA!

Hertston · Post by **Hertston** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 9:56 am

honestabe wrote:I don't give a #&$& about multiplayer and I doubt 90% of those who are going to buy it do, probably an even higher percentage than 90% don't care...release it already. I wish developers would be more like Stardock you notice they don't cater to multiplayers and that's probably why they sell 100's of thousands of copies of games like GalCiv2. {G}

I totally disagree. IMHO MP will be at the heart of this game, and certainly of any longevity it may have. It's a wargame, and a golden rule of wargames (in 2009. anyway!) is that unhandicapped AI, no matter how good, is inadequate against a competent and experienced human player unless the ruleset is sufficiently simple to allow brute-force computation (e.g. Chess), results are sufficiently random to conceal that inadequacy, or the game is so bloody complicated nobody fully understands it anyway. For the game to last, therefore, you need to be able to play against people.. good, grief, it's a board-game port!

Your comparison with Stardock is, frankly, silly. Their next flagship title, Elemental, has multiplay as do their most significant third-party titles in Sins and Demigod. The reasons for Galciv 1 & 2 not having MP are well documented but whether you agree with them or not Galciv can and does provide the player a continuous challenge against the AI. The reason is simply the nature of the game; like most '4X' titles beneath the shell it's simply a glorified spreadsheet. An AI for that is far, far easier than for a tactical wargame; just lob in the best algorithms for production and development and watch the AI get on it with far fewer mistakes than most people. Only the very best human players can even compete in those terms if the full GalCiv 2 AI is unleashed, final victory is possible only because the AI is deficient (sometimes very deficient) in other areas. Although, in fairnmess, across the board it's better than anything else Ive come across to date - I am a fan, I must admit.

honestabe · Post by **honestabe** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 2:56 pm

Their next flagship title, Elemental, has multiplay

And you're as silly as your post cause you didn't read the fine print of that multiplayer addition. They will not make any changes to the game because of multiplayer whines or issues. So, when you're going to post something post it all. Nothing in Elemental will be Influenced by multiplayer. Brad is just being nice but he's not going to be pushed around by the multiplayer element of the game. If you want quotes I can certainly post them for you IGMO!.

So far beta testing has proved the opposite. It's much, much more fun to play against another human rather than against the computer.

Well that rather knocks my interest in this game now. Thanks for saying it's more of a multiplayer game than a solo or single player game.

I've always felt if a game has to have a multiplayer element then the solo/single player game must be really bad especially the ai. Now I will have 2nd thoughts about buying this and will certainly tell all my friends who were interested.

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:00 pm

I generally agree with you Honestabe but I've found multiplayer in FoG to be a really unique experience. It's hard to explain as the reason it works so well is that you play at your own pace, like a single player gtame. No waiting in lobby's etc.

Some people prefer single and some people prefer multiplayer. We're hopiong to have something for everyone with FoG. I always assuemd in development that single player woudl be teh method of choice for the majority but after seeing how well multiplayer has evolved, now I tend to think it may be the more widely used mode. It's somethign you really need to try to understand

carlos · Post by **carlos** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:09 pm

honestabe wrote:Well that rather knocks my interest in this game now. Thanks for saying it's more of a multiplayer game than a solo or single player game.

I didn't say that it was more of an MP game rather than a single player game. I said that it was more fun to be play against human opponents, like pretty much every frigging game every invented that has an MP mode.

honestabe wrote:I've always felt if a game has to have a multiplayer element then the solo/single player game must be really bad especially the ai.

That sentence makes no sense. So are all Nintendo Wii games really bad? How about Call of Duty? Or all the street fighters? Or World of Warcraft? Or Starcraft?

honestabe wrote:Now I will have 2nd thoughts about buying this and will certainly tell all my friends who were interested.

If it talks like a troll and acts like a troll...

NefariousKoel · Post by **NefariousKoel** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 5:37 pm

Unfortunately, I've seen "HonestAbe" in other forums and this is his typcial, shrill, MO.

honestabe · Post by **honestabe** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 10:39 pm

[/quote]
I didn't say that it was more of an MP game rather than a single player game[/quote]

Yes you did when you said it was doing just the "opposite" in beta and the opposite of multiplayer is single/solo play. And you said multiplayer is better. Therefore the opposite of better is sucks so you said solo play sucks compared to multiplayer.

If it talks like a troll and acts like a troll...

Yup look in the mirror pal. You're A number 1.

So are all Nintendo Wii games really bad? How about Call of Duty? Or all the street fighters? Or World of Warcraft? Or Starcraft?

This isn't a kids console game so don't even try to imply apples and oranges. As far as Call of Duty yeah that has a pretty crappy ai beat it in 7 hours. World of Warcraft? hhahahahaha I can't believe you even mentioned that childs toy of a game. Starcraft rts ? hahahah yeah those are real "wargames" aren't they? You don't even know the defintion of a wargame.

Unfortunately, I've seen "HonestAbe" in other forums and this is his typcial, shrill, MO.

Yes and you are the typical pot being black you don't add anything to topics you just incite flamewars.

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Thu Oct 29, 2009 11:18 pm

Keep it civil please gents. Constructive discussion is fine, but let people's words stand for themselves - no need for personal comments.

OT:

Multiplayer may not be for everyone, but many people enjoy it, others do not. But multiplayer was always part of the design of the game, therefore if it is not ready to the standard we want, then the game isn't finished. Thus we delay releasing it.

Pip

PV8189 · Post by **PV8189** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 9:31 am

That sentence makes no sense. So are all Nintendo Wii games really bad? How about Call of Duty? Or all the street fighters? Or World of Warcraft? Or Starcraft?

World of warcraft doesn't even have single player!

Hertston · Post by **Hertston** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 10:09 am

honestabe wrote:hahahah yeah those are real "wargames" aren't they? You don't even know the defintion of a wargame.

It might, perhaps, clarify your position if you expanded on what you think a 'wargame' is? To me, the 'A-list' of games I consider PC ' wargames' would consist of titles like Combat Mission, War in the Pacific, Operational Art of War, Strategic Command 2, the HPS Panzer Campaigns series etc. All of them have widely-used multiplayer which is both integral to their design and a major part of their continued appeal and continuing sales.

You are also a little confused, I think, as to what this wargame is and is supposed to be. It's a computer port of a successful (indeed staggeringly successful, in its own niche) set of tabletop miniatures rules. Such rules are obviously intended for human v. human play, and a PC port without the facility could never be more than half a game, particularly for players of the miniatures version. Obviously a strong AI is a major plus but even if that is delivered, as I have already explained, it will not provide a lasting challenge for a capable and experienced player or at least, if it does, it will be a PC wargame first!. Without MP, therefore, regardless of the percentage of punters that ever try it, FoG will be dead in the water within a few months without MP. With MP, it could easily go on to become the online game of choice for a market that is substantially larger than you seem to think, which I'm sure is what Iain hopes will happen.

honestabe · Post by **honestabe** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:20 pm

I will stand on what is proven and known. This game will never stand on it's multiplayer ability especially in this market. Only a handful of old farts and fuddy duddies will buy it for the multiplayer experience. The majority of sales (if there are any now) will be for the solo single player element. That's what fricking people buy computers for gaming for the majority of the time to play against the computer. But, you go on living in your delusional world where you think multiplayer is going to carry this game. I'm sure Slitherine sold 100,000 copies of Legion because of it's multiplayer elements! lmao Tell me now how well your sales of Conquest:Medieval is going for it's multiplayer element??

Post by **pipfromslitherine** » Fri Oct 30, 2009 8:42 pm

Not a very constructive post.

Multiplayer isn't needed to 'carry' anything. The game is fun in single player. The game is fun in multiplayer. You get different experiences depending upon which you play.

The pedigree of the game means that it is expected more than usual numbers of people will be playing against friends simply because a community already exists which enjoy the rules and the game type.

You don't like multiplayer? Fine - buy the game and enjoy its great single player experience.

Pip

NefariousKoel · Post by **NefariousKoel** » Sat Oct 31, 2009 3:20 am

You can't say I didn't warn you about angst poster.

Tpek · Post by **Tpek** » Wed Nov 04, 2009 6:49 pm

So when can we finally expect the game?

I'm quite anxious to see how it came out. It'd be nice to have a good turn based Ancients/Medieval warfare wargame/digital-minis-game

Btw, I assume there will be Hotseat option for MP right?
And will there be an option for truly multi-player battles (3+ players)?

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 12:08 pm

The HexWar team have had a few real life issues which have slowed thigns down and we've been out of the office a lot meeting Microsoft about project Natal so we are close to completion but we're not going to be ready for Friday

There are a couple of AI issues we want to look and and some testing on final installers to make sure it all works as intended. We really do hope next week will see the project complete, but as I've said before we do not plan to release until it is ready. I know it's frustrating but the best thing for everyone in the long run.

There will be HotSeat MP yes, but multiplayer is currently all 1v1.

daveblackmon · Post by **daveblackmon** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:50 pm

HI,
I think I may be having a video card issue, what do y'all think?

I've downloaded the beta and the patches, but when it finally loads the "buttons" on the right side of the screen don't have words, but dots. When I click on one it opens a window with the same problem. Also while it's loading it keeps flashing to a white screen then back to the page briefly.

I look forward to and am grateful for the input.
Dave

Post by **IainMcNeil** » Thu Nov 05, 2009 9:59 pm

Please post to the private Beta forum - this is a public area!