CO Word of the Week #8

[Marauder101]

I bought the game at release for full price. To me it was unplayable due to the low performance on what I think is a reasonable box. Simulation was so "strange" that I never got a grip on what measures would produce which results. To the brink of total randomness. The absolue low was the complete nonsensical demand for low density housing. Like building a village to infinity. Since then, I'm being told that eventually there will be a patch for whatever error you've been able to fix. I'm deeply disappointed by CO and have abandoned the game. Money written off. Will not hapoen again.

 

[MrPaperwings]

I have no doubt that the vast majority of people understand the positon that the devs are in, and are sympathetic that fixes take time.

However, I think that much of the animosity stems from the lack of communications from CO and - to some extent - a lack of honesty.

A lot of promises were made and a huge amount of hype was built up around this game, and some of those things either haven't been delivered or the timeline for delivering them has become very unclear - often with extensions. I know CS2 isn't the only game in this position, but the lack of clear communications has been a genuine issue, and statements like "if you dislike the simulation, this game just might not be for you" have added to this animosity.

I think a lot of players are still wondering why simple quality of life improvements like Move It and Prop Line Tool weren't built into the game from the very beginning. These really should have been present, and it was a consistent theme in the preview videos from YouTube creators. Ignoring this and failing to explain why this was overlooked adds to the annoyance and leaves too much space for misinformation to grow.

There's been no communication about this, and leaving it to the community to mod the game while they wait for the Editor feels like the devs are happy to make money from endless DLCs but don't care about what those who have supported CS1 and CS2 actually want.

Bullying and harrassment of devs is never acceptable, and we know you are doing what you can with the resources available. Just please consider talking to the community about their actual questions and admit failures - this will buy so much more understanding and empathy for your positon.

The community wants to feed back in a positive way, but right now it feels like even constructive feedback is being seen as being negative or 'toxic'.

 

[FOXhesp]

Love all the work done until now but still crapy performance and trains stil not transporting nothing….

 

[TheNotoriousPUG]

Regarding toxicity, I think you should update the community guidelines and rules and then also act upon them without mercy against toxicity and hate... and ban users from participating. Because there is just no room for toxicity and hate anywhere, and thus no public platform should be given for them! There is never every a reasonable excuse for toxicity and / or hate (like some try to find with "oh the state of the game blabla...) - no matter what happened, civil discussion must always be a priority between human individuals.

100% this.

 

[Nyrobee]

Please, if anything they should be bowing their heads in shame and give a public apology for the mess they released.

People have every right to be furious. They were sold one product and they received a barely functional product missing everything that they were being sold.

In my opinion this is a gross exaggeration of its shortcomings. Of course you can have expectations, but it remains a game that you buy for some free time. There is no reason for a developer to have to go through the motions because the customer is not satisfied when the developer indicates that he is doing everything he can to solve the problems.

 

[S.C. Watson]

Here are a few ideas to start with:

• Give feedback and disagree, but do it constructively! Be specific and detailed, and don't worry about what others think. We have a diverse community so opinions and experiences will always vary.
• Assume people mean well and remember that tone can be hard to convey in writing.
• Help us make the community a nice place for everyone by showing your fellow mayors how to give constructive feedback.
• Always be kind

I am disagreeing:

CO's production of an inferior product and their hamfisted handling of the post-release fallout and continually laying blame for the faults of the game and the frustration it causes at the feet of it's fans feel extremely disingenuous and is the root cause for the toxicity. Not the community. We are frustrated with the game, and with CO.

-----------------
Feedback:

The game should not have launched in the state that it did. The fact that CO pumped it up as complete, and a worthy successor of CS1 when it obviously was not felt like a smack in the face.

At the bare minimum, CS2 should have used the complete version of CS1 that included the DLCs and CCPs as the starting point for the new game. All the features and functionality of the finished original CS1 game should have been available in CS2 at launch - had you done this with just the revamped road engine and surfaces, we would not be having this conversation. Hell, you could have probably included the original assets and it probably would have been fine.

When CO started saying not to compare the games, that was the first indication that there was going to be an issue - because it's a successor, a sequel, it is impossible not to compare them, because the follow up game is supposed to be better at release. But it is objectively not. It was, and continues to be, a hot mess.

Aside from the technical issues that plague the game, including graphical glitches with assets randomly vanishing, the game got rid of bikes (like, why?), uses literally the same zoneing engine as the first game that most players hate instead of develping a more streamlined and sensible engine. Available detailing assets are less than minimal, never mind there's a small treasure trove of them available if you're willing to crack open the game via the dev tools. No offense, but it feels like a bunch of 12 year olds who didn't want to share their toys designed the game. And that is very, very frustrating, and is not in any way imaginable condusive to enjoyable game play.

The game has potential, sure. I think we all can see that. But we shouldn't have to wait several months or more after release to see a fraction of it realized.

I have not attacked you, or any of the Devs, or any community member. And while I am not being "kind" in this particular instance, I am being polite, which is about as far as I can go at the moment.

~S

[edit: werds]

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

The game was released nearly 3 months ago unfinished and in an infuriating state. The last patch was released 1 month ago and the game is still incomplete, bug-ridden, unoptimized and without modding support. This week, instead of a well-deserved roadmap, we get a couple guesses for the upcoming months and that's it. Oh and instead of a well-deserved late apology we get another long patronizing sermon about the "community". How's that for toxicity towards your customers?

I'm way too old for this. I won't read another word of the week or anything coming from CO except factual patch notes. I'm so sick of this situation I'd like to say I'm done with CS II but sadly its only competitor is CS 1 which I already played to death since 2015. So i'll keep updated from time to time, hoping my already spent 50 € will get me a complete and satisfying game someday. And that's it.

This in a nutshell, thank you for expressing our frustrations in a succinct way. I’m very tired of the same thing said time after time with a sprinkle of accusing the community is at fault: it is really wearing thin on me, especially when this is not the first time they have done so.

I came in really hoping there was a roadmap so I can be optimistic about the games future, instead it’s just the same thing said 3 months ago again and again. It’s the hallmark of unfinished game.

 

[tom_mai78101]

I came in really hoping there was a roadmap so I can be optimistic about the games future, instead it’s just the same thing said 3 months ago again and again. It’s the hallmark of unfinished game.

I don't think it's possible to ask for a new roadmap that's basically the same roadmap planned since months ago. If you wanted an actual roadmap, then I think it's better to construct feedback on what roadmap aspects / components the current roadmap is lacking / missing, and ask the right questions, so CO can go ahead and add more information.

I do agree the current roadmap is high-level and not detailed, but I don't get what else is needed to be clear. Like, what parts of the roadmap are too vague to everyone who disagrees with the current roadmap we have?

 

[ReaperXGaymer]

With that said, there is an inaccessibility to some of your decisions. With TMPE, for example, we had an advanced AI that effectively rendered dynamic path-finding and lane-switching. It existed for a few years in CS1. How is it possible, many wonder, that we don't apparently have that in the base of the second version of the game?

Before the release of CS2. TMPE was the only feature I hoped and wished was embedded into the core game. It somewhat already is with the road tools but not to the extent that TMPE was. I think they can still do it because it's halfway implemented. I don't want TMPE as another mod for CS2 but a core feature in the game.

 

[MohawkWolfo98]

I don't think it's possible to ask for a new roadmap that's basically the same roadmap planned since months ago. If you wanted an actual roadmap, then I think it's better to construct feedback on what roadmap aspects / components the current roadmap is lacking / missing, and ask the right questions, so CO can go ahead and add more information.

I do agree the current roadmap is high-level and not detailed, but I don't get what else is needed to be clear. Like, what parts of the roadmap are too vague to everyone who disagrees with the current roadmap we have?

I have attached an Imperator roadmap which I was a big fan of but was not good enough at launch:

It’s simple, easy to understand, and clear. Clearly stated what is being worked on in the months to come, what are the mechanics being reworked on, what might be happening in the future with DLC approach wise. notice they had clear dates on patches in the first month of release alone. The Imperator team kept their promise iirc, it pretty much played out as it was. Despite its eventual failure, I came to deeply respect the team that did it, recognised it messed up the launch, and what it would do in the future to solve it and make it doesn’t happen again in future PDX titles. Whatever they said before release (Johan infamous No, no, no), after it they were humbled and changed their approach and did not blame the community for it. I deeply respected that and grew to love the community around it and its developers. CO has done none of these things to help rebuild the trust, and the opposite in most cases.

As to the actual questions: I would like to know what the team will do in terms of mechanics: will they be addressing our concerns of failsafes and whatnot which has been reported since the beginning, hard modes etc? What time frame should we expect them to be? How long would it take to fix the bugs as an ETA? Will bikes be added, and how about performance issues? When will it be complete and by how long? Will there be massive overhauls to game systems, such as gettjg rid of taxes to education levels (a really weird mechanic)? What’s happening to the modding that was supposed to be released “shortly after”, when is the ETA on it?

 

[TwentyFumble]

Why not release the Map editor already?

It's clearly already functional, and I don't really like most of the default maps. Having modders being able to build new maps would be a welcome addition.

 

[SwiftBacon]

At the bare minimum, CS2 should have used the complete version of CS1 as the starting point for the new game. All the features and functionality of the finished original CS1 game should have been available in CS2 at launch - had you done this with just the revamped road engine and surfaces, we would not be having this conversation. Hell, you could have probably included the original assets and it probably would have been fine.

Entirely disagree. CS1 was not a finished game. It was a rushed game that improved with DLCs that weren't initially planned.

Some features like being able to make custom parks would be nice in CS2, but there was a lot of CS1 that was completely outdated and actually didn't even make sense when you got some of the DLCs. Some of the original assets in CS1 are butt ugly and would have been largely unused anyway. Like what's the point of using vanilla airports if you got the Airports DLC?

Also, the simulation in CS1 was entirely limited. The reason for the small map sizes and hardcoded agent limits was because the game wasn't optimized to take advantage of any improvements in computer hardware. It didn't matter how many cores you had, the game could never simulate more than 70,000 agents at a time.

CS1 DLCs did a lot of the heavy lifting in covering up the game's base issues.

 

[safe-keeper]

Ah yes, only approve the 'positive' ones; delete the criticism.

If you don't understand the difference between constructive criticism and toxicity, perhaps you should indeed stay off the forums until you figure it out. It's not hard.

edit: the fact that I get that many dislikes just for pointing out you can be critical without being toxic worries me.

 

[safe-keeper]

Oh, and I agree these DDs are way too vague, with too little sense of urgency. A concrete road map would be nice, too. I have hopes for CS2, even though it got a rough start and is incredibly ambitious, but the tone of the WoWs is off-putting, to be honest.

 

[S.C. Watson]

CS1 DLCs did a lot of the heavy lifting in covering up the game's base issues.

To clarify briefly; when I say the complete version of CS1, I am meaning the inclusion of the DLCs and CCPs (an earlier version of my post mentioned that, but had been edited down and thus removed. I forgot to put it back in).

But, yes, the original base game of CS1 was and continues to be a janky mess. My intent there was the functional inclusion of the DLCs and CCPs as a starting point. I'll edit that part back in for clarity.

 

[BoraBora]

I don't think it's possible to ask for a new roadmap that's basically the same roadmap planned since months ago. If you wanted an actual roadmap, then I think it's better to construct feedback on what roadmap aspects / components the current roadmap is lacking / missing, and ask the right questions, so CO can go ahead and add more information.

I do agree the current roadmap is high-level and not detailed, but I don't get what else is needed to be clear. Like, what parts of the roadmap are too vague to everyone who disagrees with the current roadmap we have?

Which current roadmap? The only roadmap I've seen is the Steam page one which proved to be false advertising. Right now, CS II's roadmap is: "we hope to finish the game and fix the biggest problems by spring so we can start selling the console version". Is that what you're calling the current roadmap?

 

[[Delta ²k5]]

Oh, and I agree these DDs are way too vague, with too little sense of urgency. A concrete road map would be nice, too. I have hopes for CS2, even though it got a rough start and is incredibly ambitious, but the tone of the WoWs is off-putting, to be honest.

I think that CO currently is not able to provide a valid roadmap until most of the performance bugs on GPU and CPU side are fixed. Usually you only provide roadmaps for features. Bugfixes will be released as soon as they are done, so these are not planned beforehand as it's not clear when a bug will be analyzed, reproduced and finally fixed, so there is not much more to be told here until it's basically finished and ready for that single release.

The additional performance however will be needed to add new, planned features on top of the existing system, so if there is a bottleneck already the situation will get worse with more content added if the root cause still exists.

However it's the same situation as with C:S1 which just crashed during loading a save after a specific threshold of assets was added, so they will get worked out again

 

[coasterfreak0471]

Welcome back from your holiday! Really hope that the time off was well-spent and everyone feels re-energized to get back into working on the game. I can only imagine the impending doom of "okay we have a lot to work on immediately after we get back", but please take the time necessary to work on the fixes and additions the game needs (some more desperate than others).

Regarding the toxicity of the community, it is understandable to be frustrated with those who are ruining the experience for others and are not providing meaningful discussions on how the game can be improved. From my perspective, the wise thing to do is to ignore those comments (in the sense that by giving them attention, we only justify why they do what they do, so they'll keep being toxic) and instead focus on those giving helpful "insights". It is important to address that the community should be respectful to each other and especially the developers, but to "egg them on" with further posting about how their behavior has detracted from those who love playing the game, it defeats the purpose of trying to mitigate such behavior and only makes things worse on both sides of the discussion. HOWEVER, this is not to say there should be more "policing" of the forums/discussion pages; rather, use the tools already provided to report unwelcome behavior (the "unhelpful toxicity" in question) and continue communicating with the community via these posts and follow-up comments to show that you and the team are listening to EVERYONE (and yes, even to disprove the "toxic ones").

With that being said, I am appreciative of these posts, so please keep doing what you're doing and communicating with us; it has been much needed throughout the release of this game.

 

[mntoes]

Ah yes, only approve the 'positive' ones; delete the criticism.

And what about the posts on steam full of foul language and personal attacks against CO staff? Not what I think is acceptable. I'm not going to link to any because they are vile and agressive.

 

[davidmrc]

And what about the posts on steam full of foul language and personal attacks against CO staff? Not waht I think is acceptable. I'm not going to link to any because they are vile and agressive.

The WoW is posted in the official Paradox forum that already has rules and punishment for personal attacks/harassment to other members/staff/mods. As long as they are enforced, there is no need to approve comments. I don't understand the logic behind your comment, because the cesspool known as Steam Discussions is vile, that justifies censorship on a different platform? Timmy does something wrong, let's punish everyone else instead.