Hmmm so many "interesting" perspectives here....
It seems a number of folks are having trouble staying on topic, perhaps the forum moderators will step in and help us out. Speaking of which....
@Piconi Keep your slander to yourself and try to stay on topic.
Accusing me of being "not nice" or creating a "hostile environment" for asking how a game company will implement a major feature such as Alliances in what will be a 4-5 month window is the very definition of creating a "hostile environment". I don't know what criteria there is for awarding a moderator badge but you may want to consider turning yours in.
I asked when we will get this feature and pointed out for very obvious reasons why it would seem EA is out of the question. I also asked for a development roadmap and timeline which would presumably answer my first question. A company should expect these questions and should be able to answer them.
Watch the environment you are creating before you start handing out advice.
@scarface52 did you read my post or did you read the first sentence and then post for the sake of it? I won't await your reply, I already know the answer.
November, December, January, February, March. It's actually 5 months, but you were close. As long as you are not a project manager at TaleWorlds I won't hold your inability to track to a deadline against you.
The point of the thread was "We need alliances". It's in the title, in case YOU missed it. Therefore, one of the most pertinent line of questions are 1) are alliances already in
scope? 2) if yes, then
when? 3) if not then when and at what
cost? It's difficult to define "need" without this information as all projects are constrained by trade-offs between
scope,
time, and
cost.
It seems you want to have a discussion on "How should alliances be implemented". There is a suggestions forum where you can start that thread and go crazy. Alternatively, if you perceive the point of this thread titled
"We need alliances" to be a discussion on how alliances should work then go ahead and have that discussion. I won't stop you, or presume to tell you that you are "missing the point of the thread" and ask you to participate in a different discussion that I would rather have. Live your life (but please don't take a job as a project manager for TaleWorlds).
-------------------------------------------------
So I asked some pretty basic questions about when and how alliances could realistically be implemented and Mexxico, to his credit, (thank you
@mexxico) provided some insight. It seems many of you missed his post, and I suggest you
go read it here, before you succumb to further hysteria and derail this thread further.
Based upon the additional information provided by Mexxico I can firmly say, no we do not NEED alliances. At least I personally do not. I would much prefer TaleWorlds finish Early Access and not introduce scope creep into the project. I would prefer Alliances are placed on the backburner as a DLC or 6-month patch or 2nd year expansion or whatever makes the most sense in terms of the overall project timeline and content roadmap.
Without access to a project timeline and content roadmap it's hard to say with any informed opinion what is or isn't scope creep, and how alliances do or do not fit into the 5 year-roadmap for the game.
There is a long list of features that are not implemented or not working correctly that I would place on higher priority (i.e. that the game NEEDS) before alliances. This list of features is probably more than enough to keep TaleWorlds busy through the next 6 months of Early Access when the game is supposed to be finished.
Some customers may not mind games the remain in a perpetual state of Early Access even if they have continuous amount of rough edges while remaining under constant development. Those customers are the same that helped usher in the new monetization schemes that game companies abuse today.
I remember when game companies used to have to invest millions of dollars of corporate cash to develop and polish a game, then burn that game on a CD (or other media), then ship that game to stores, then hope enough people would buy their game and LOVE it on DAY 1 so they could recoup their initial investment and then turn a profit.
If there are any trade-offs that involve extending Early Access of an unfinished, unpolished, and often un-fun game vs. finishing the game and realizing it's current potential, I am in favor of finishing the game.
