Search results for query: *

Messius said:

Can you name any fantasy elements in Calradia?

Click to expand...

The fact that it's not real. That's literally what a "fantasy" world is. Star Wars is a fantasy world. So is Star Trek, any world that's not real is fantasy

Faranox said:

Better the CM be a smartass than a dumbass. Did you see how rudely the question was phrased as well? Are you applying for CM or something?

On topic: I'm heartbroken about no live Battle servers in matchmaking.

Click to expand...

While I agree with you, and the question was phrased rudely, the CM didn't even answer his original question, instead, responding in a rude, unprofessional manner. And no, I would not apply for CM, it's a hard job, I don't envy the current CM, but "answering" a question in such a rude manner is unacceptable.

As a side-note, when you look at my previous messages, it appears I'm upset about their being no beta patch, I am not. I just feel that the reasons provided as to why there isn't one are invalid. As I've said multiple times before, the beta branch is to test, and it's meant to be unstable, that's why it's opt in. I also just wanted to respond to the rude response from the CM, and I apologize if I came of rudely.

SGT_Night said:

If u aren’t capable of thinking by your self i will explain more directly.

The problems they are referring to in the beta are probably game breaking/causing crashes, how are u supposed to test something it if crash constantly or work so bad that the only thing people would report is what TW already know it's broken…

Click to expand...

Ever heard of a "Known Bugs" section? It exists solely for the purpose of reducing the amount of times people report duplicate issues.

And game breaking bugs/crashes have been in every beta, again, the point of a beta is to find these issues. It's damn near impossible that they've messed up so badly that you can't play for more than 5 minutes.

Duh_TaleWorlds said:

Everyone's got a bad day now n then.

But more on point, we have moved betas to live without a new beta before - when we thought it to be ready. And we will do so again - because we do want to bring the MP content to players, but we don't want to split the MP playerbase unnecessarily. (More curiously we even had 2 betas at one point.)

As for our beta release approach - we have our internal processes and guidelines. While the beta is less stable, it is still meant to pass certain criteria. So we won't release it with known (frequent) crashes or other significantly game breaking issues.

Click to expand...

Thank you for delivering your point better, more concise, and in a non-disrespectful way, something your community manager couldn't do. I don't mean to sound like an ******* in saying that, but if your community manager is unable to respond helpfully and without being a smart-ass, that's not good.

Dejan said:

So you would prefer to see:
a) The current Beta patch not being moved to live if the next Beta patch isn't ready.
b) The next Beta patch being released to the players even if hasn't undergone the necessary internal tests and had critical issues fixed.

Noted.

Click to expand...

There is a reason the beta branch is called a beta, and a reason why it's an opt-in update. It's meant to be unstable, players are better at finding bugs and in much higher numbers than your testers. The whole reason you release beta updates is to let the community find issues.

Also, every single patch before this has released with a new beta patch, why is this one any different? If the game can launch in the beta, it should be released, it's not meant to be a stable experience, that's a warning it has by being called beta.

And, why deliver your points in such a smart-ass way? No one appreciates that. I do, however, appreciate you at least responding.

Thanks!