Login

russian armor

Multiplayer Alpha

What do you prefer?
Option Distribution Votes
36%
64%
Total votes: 89
Vote VOTE! Vote ABSTAIN
3 Nov 2021, 10:06 AM
#1
avatar of Sturmpanther
Lead Strategist Badge

Posts: 5441 | Subs: 36

Curious, how is the mood and feeling about this?
3 Nov 2021, 12:40 PM
#2
avatar of OrangePest

Posts: 570 | Subs: 1

Early release because it gives more time to take a greater look at design,dynamics ect
3 Nov 2021, 13:13 PM
#3
avatar of Spanky
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2

How severe are the bugs? I would like to test it ASAP.
3 Nov 2021, 13:16 PM
#4
avatar of Kurobane

Posts: 658

Personally I think it should be released as soon as possible. Yes there will be bugs but it gives the opportunity to find additional bugs by releasing to the general public.
3 Nov 2021, 13:41 PM
#5
avatar of Mithiriath
Director of Social Media Badge

Posts: 830 | Subs: 3

Same opinion than my uppers neighbors.
3 Nov 2021, 14:20 PM
#6
avatar of SneakEye
Senior Modmaker Badge

Posts: 817 | Subs: 5

I think it depends on the scope of the pre-alpha. Testing design is very useful in an early stage so there is enough time to adjust it when necessary. The first pre-alpha had that purpose and that was a very good approach.

It can also be very useful to start with technical tests early, but only if small finished parts of the game can be tested in isolation. However, I think testing unfinished multiplayer content will barely have value for the developers since most of the feedback will be known issues. If the performance is bad, then the developers know that already. If the balance is not final, then they know that too. That kind of tests are useful when the developers think it is (almost) finished and need mass 'monkey tests'.

The first pre-alpha had many disappointed players complaining about stuff on which Relic replied that they are aware of it and it is planned for the future. I fear too many of such tests will only harm the expectations and might lose potential future players.
3 Nov 2021, 14:21 PM
#7
avatar of WhiteFlash
Senior Mapmaker Badge
Benefactor 119

Posts: 1295 | Subs: 1

Would have to know more about the part of the developement cycle they are in to make an informed decision.

Depends on bug severity, if there are no obvious brutal ones send it.

Otherwise bugs will interfere with the impression of the multiplayer and will stifle the kind of first impression that is above a normal level of importance.

Gut impression is wait and let them get it squared away.
3 Nov 2021, 15:18 PM
#8
avatar of capiqua
Senior Mapmaker Badge

Posts: 985 | Subs: 2

Nowadays the testers are always the users, in all games. The devs are dedicated to developing the game.

Guys it is an alpha to test, when it comes out it will have less bugs .
Pip
3 Nov 2021, 15:33 PM
#9
avatar of Pip

Posts: 1594

Early alpha, and then another later alpha with fewer bugs. (And also ideally feedback from the first alpha). Its there for testing, I don't really see much reason to delay it due to it being buggy... That's ostensibly the sort of thing the alpha is to address.
3 Nov 2021, 15:44 PM
#10
avatar of d0ggY
Senior Caster Badge

Posts: 823 | Subs: 3

Would have to know more about the part of the developement cycle they are in to make an informed decision.

Depends on bug severity, if there are no obvious brutal ones send it.

Otherwise bugs will interfere with the impression of the multiplayer and will stifle the kind of first impression that is above a normal level of importance.

Gut impression is wait and let them get it squared away.


Well - Just with your Maps, Relics needs people to test it, so while we expect them to make a good game, we might have to help them find some bugs.

While your points are very valid, the possible solution would be to make it a closed alpha first to exterminate bugs that ruin gameplay experiences
3 Nov 2021, 15:59 PM
#11
avatar of YRon²y

Posts: 221

I think you should do it ASAP, so people can abuse the shit out of it, while it's still an ALPHA.
:D
3 Nov 2021, 17:15 PM
#12
avatar of Rosbone

Posts: 2144 | Subs: 2

If it comes out with terrible bugs it will make people lose faith. Unless the bugs are funny, in which case people will be talking about them forever with smiles on their faces.

For example seeing a sherman drive up and over a giant building in Relics own videos does not impart a good feeling.

So this question is best asked for the secret testers of the game since you guys have already played the multiplayer. Should it be released early?

Watching the AOE4 reviews shows a few things:
1) AOE4 runs pretty smoothly but not perfect. Elpern for example cant go near water without massive frame drops.
2) Things were noted in alphas that did not get put in the game. Which sounds like Relic did not listen or try to do those things since many were simple and part of AOE2.
3) Basic AOE2 mechanics are not implemented. These things sound like limitations of the Essence engine or just Relic in general. Not enough zoom, bad hotkeys, small pop cap, etc.
4) People have complained that the Relic servers are trash. So this may be an issue here also.
5) Weird issues with A-move and units just not doing what they are told (classic Essence engine problems?).

Overall the reviews have been perfectly 84% positive every day since release. So people in general are happy with AOE4. Except the hardcore AOE and SC2 fans.

I bring that all up since AOE4 alphas did not seem to make the game better. Relic really seems to be trying to get Coh3 figured out by the community so maybe things will go better for Coh3. Or is it all just more marketing?

If it is not just marketing, sooner is always better so you have time to fix the broken stuff. One year is not a long time in game development.
4 Nov 2021, 05:00 AM
#13
avatar of Spanky
Senior Strategist Badge

Posts: 1820 | Subs: 2

CoH-Development - the direction taken is to involve the community so the more we test the better the outcome, yeah? People will argue about the state of the Alpha, some will give up hope as seen before, but in the end, if the game is a success the players will come back.
4 Nov 2021, 10:23 AM
#14
avatar of NorthWeapon
Donator 11

Posts: 615

The second option should be:

"I don't want to participate in pre-alpha preview and would rather play the full release."

The second option currently makes no sense. So you want to test the preview... but you don't want bugs? Okay so what do you think this is, opportunity to have fun or opportunity to help fix the game?

If you just want a fun experience then wait for the release. But if you want to help the developers then play the alpha.

The whole point of the preview is so they don't repeat DoW 3. They currently have PTSD with DoW 3 and want to make sure CoH 3 is good.

I encourage everyone to participate even if it is boring, frustrating, and not enjoyable.

In game design, the game is boring all the way until the final release. That's just how it is.

Think about it, imagine playing a FPS game without reload in preview. Its not going to be fun until they add it. Thats how it is with CoH. Important mechanics and features are still missing that changes the entire experience.
4 Nov 2022, 12:27 PM
#15
avatar of simpelekees
Patrion 310

Posts: 159

Id like a beta that lasts for a month with 1 map, like they did in coh1. With all factions for a smaller group to intensively test balance issues and blob meta and such.
This should be in close communication with the best coh players.
0 user is browsing this thread:

Ladders Top 10

  • #
    Steam Alias
    W
    L
    %
    Streak
Data provided by Relic Relic Entertainment

Replay highlight

VS
  • U.S. Forces flag cblanco ★
  • The British Forces flag 보드카 중대
  • Oberkommando West flag VonManteuffel
  • Ostheer flag Heartless Jäger
uploaded by XXxxHeartlessxxXX

Board Info

578 users are online: 578 guests
1 post in the last 24h
7 posts in the last week
39 posts in the last month
Registered members: 49060
Welcome our newest member, starkindustries
Most online: 2043 users on 29 Oct 2023, 01:04 AM