-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Nothing in your post or the one you quoted stated that, but thank-you for the clarification.
Well, Mordachai (whom I quoted) was talking about "devs". You (PI) are not the devs in this case. You are the publisher.
Well, Mordachai (whom I quoted) was talking about "devs". You (PI) are not the devs in this case. You are the publisher.
Except one of them is a Mod of this Sots2 forum.
Except one of them is a Mod of this Sots2 forum.
Heh you really comfortable giving Caste "responsibility" after we all saw what he did with it as producer of sots2?
IS anyone finidng that agressiveness of the AI players a bit low? They never seem to attack me. Plus random encounters are on the low side as well, even when it's cranked up to 200%. Not seen a grand menace either.
Are those things confirmed to be on the "still to do" list?
Are those things confirmed to be on the "still to do" list?
AI isn't fully implemented yet and the encounter rate seems to be a little buggy still. There is a big patch coming in aprox 2 weeks that may address them, but the game isn't up to 1.0 yet. You'll know the time comes when the opening cinematic is back in.
My complaint is that paradox is still pushing this game. If you know it is a shambles, take it down from your current games list, and don't try and trick your customers into spending money on something that you agree is worthless.
This argument was brought a lot of times. Theres no official statement on this problem and - having read through all of the behaviour of PI and Kerberso - i think there will never be one...
As the guy that does the deleting on the Kerberos forums, this just isn't the case.
Nor, just to be clear, are we banning people out of hand.
We are maintaining - which is incredibly hard I might add - as best we can, a balance between people who rightfully have something to say (which is most people, pro and con, and more often, a mix of both) and those that are abusing the opportunity (or are outright abusive.)
To be sure, the Yay team is a lot more helpful to our state of mind and disposition as we work on the game and continue to try and make ourselves uncommonly available, directly, to you all. But "They're banning/deleting anybody that isn't sucking up to them!" usually means "They're banning/deleting a couple of us for very specific and not outlandish reasons" in reality.
If anyone feels this isn't the case, I apologize - we are doing the best we can with the situation at hand and the philosophy of dev-player communications that we're committed to maintaining.
Thanks, all - hope everyone has a great weekend.
c
@Castewar: Perhaps you are so kind to answer the question Amoral asked before (at least regarding Kerberos): Why dont you stop the selling of the game until it has reached a playable version 1.0? At the moment i cant say that the people, saying you are knowingly selling a not really working piece of code, are wrong. So why dont you stop this, until you guys finished your work and still take the money from (after purchase) dissapointed customers?
I loved SotS prime to pieces even though when i first bought it it was a buggy piece of excrement and didn't "rediscover" it till the first expansion came out and i decided to give it another try.
I had very high hopes for SotS2, and was crushed when it turned out to be completely unplayable.
After a while i got my hopes up again that the game might eventually be good, and over the last couple of months that hope has has also faded. I think that eventually it might turn out to be playable, but I'm 100% sure it will not be as good as the first one. Not because of bad design choices, but simple bad implementation.
I no longer believe the fundamental problems of bad interface, bad design choices, and poor game balancing can be fixed at such a late date.
The game's pacing is completely flawed. You start out with 3 worlds and a higher tech base than SotS prime, but you never really advance past the tech available in SotS prime. Its not even clear you really need to advance tech much at all to win anymore, the expansion phase of the game was sharply curtailed, but they padded the gameplay by slowing down the rate at which you can expand or develop to a crawl. Smaller scale gameplay not offset by more in depth control over you empire, constraints imposed by mission system and admirals not offset by greater tactical or strategic diversity on the use of fleets. Lack of streamlining makes everything micro-management intensive, making turns far longer and large empires a nightmare to manage.
The AI alone will take months to fix; the lackluster use of the new 3d aspects in combat fails to compensate for the shoddy combat AI. The complete lack of Strategic AI makes the game a glorified demo at best, a buggy test of concept at worse. So many issues need to be adressed before balance issues can be adressed that they likely never will be adressed. A year from now when everything is where it should have been at release, the developers will breath a sigh of relief and move on to make something else, maybe an expansion, but the players will have also moved on, and there will be no incentive to make the gameplay changes and balance adjustments needed to make this game better than average. This game's lifespan will be over long before its really "done" and people will never see a game worthy of being a sequel to SotS prime.
I had very high hopes for SotS2, and was crushed when it turned out to be completely unplayable.
After a while i got my hopes up again that the game might eventually be good, and over the last couple of months that hope has has also faded. I think that eventually it might turn out to be playable, but I'm 100% sure it will not be as good as the first one. Not because of bad design choices, but simple bad implementation.
I no longer believe the fundamental problems of bad interface, bad design choices, and poor game balancing can be fixed at such a late date.
The game's pacing is completely flawed. You start out with 3 worlds and a higher tech base than SotS prime, but you never really advance past the tech available in SotS prime. Its not even clear you really need to advance tech much at all to win anymore, the expansion phase of the game was sharply curtailed, but they padded the gameplay by slowing down the rate at which you can expand or develop to a crawl. Smaller scale gameplay not offset by more in depth control over you empire, constraints imposed by mission system and admirals not offset by greater tactical or strategic diversity on the use of fleets. Lack of streamlining makes everything micro-management intensive, making turns far longer and large empires a nightmare to manage.
The AI alone will take months to fix; the lackluster use of the new 3d aspects in combat fails to compensate for the shoddy combat AI. The complete lack of Strategic AI makes the game a glorified demo at best, a buggy test of concept at worse. So many issues need to be adressed before balance issues can be adressed that they likely never will be adressed. A year from now when everything is where it should have been at release, the developers will breath a sigh of relief and move on to make something else, maybe an expansion, but the players will have also moved on, and there will be no incentive to make the gameplay changes and balance adjustments needed to make this game better than average. This game's lifespan will be over long before its really "done" and people will never see a game worthy of being a sequel to SotS prime.
It does strike me as rather dishonest -- the game not only isn't stable, but it's still missing many of its advertised features, and if the last 8 weeks are any indication it will be months before they're in, let alone balanced and polished.
Why is Paradox selling a broken, incomplete game? How is that the action of a developer with integrity?
I've spent a lot of money on Paradox titles, but this really leaves a bad taste in my mouth, and I haven't even bought SotS2 -- I can only imagine how those who actually buy the game feel. It doesn't seem like a smart move for Paradox. This is not how you build a reputation, but rather how you tear one down.
HA! does this not have to be a game before you can complain about it? Developers like this are one of the reasons PC games are ports or never get made and ontop of that it gives pirates ammo for their cause because who in they're right mind knowing full well about this game before hand would buy this crap. Go play Galactic Civ its cheap on sale and finished. I vote 3 times for worst game of the year: SOTS2 Worst developer:Kerberos Worst Publisher(ever)aradox Interactive oh wait one more vote and it's a positive vote for best fanboy forumaradox forums.
I vote 3 times for worst game of the year: SOTS2 Worst developer:Kerberos Worst Publisher(ever)aradox Interactive oh wait one more vote and it's a positive vote for best fanboy forumaradox forums. 
So because Paradox published one bad game, you think they are the worst publisher. What about all their other great games, that you own?
I should give you a heads up he is a troll, he is quite active around game releases
Yup like vicky 2 Pride of nations hearts of iron 3 pirates of black cove supreme ruler ethier one,the list can go if you wish.
I'm active around game releases because I buy the game should I go register all my games from paradox I guess I will. And so I have every right to complain and bash crappy companies who willingly falsely advertise and continue to sell their "product".If you dont like it bite me
Read all my comments in my profile some good postive praising comments also. You are the troll you said nothing just to discredit me and contribute nothing. My opinion is what it is so tough tit bud.