Enough is Enough... No more updates... please

For general talk about Supreme Ruler 2010

Moderators: Balthagor, Legend, Moderators

BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Enough is Enough... No more updates... please

Post by BigStone »

Again.. thanks for the up#5.... 8)

But there is not much improved to the game....
All is the same ... sometime more difficulties... sometimes less...
The game is tweaked alot and that's okay...
BUT it always ENDS with a WAR.... :-?

I think its time to bringout something compltley NEW based on the current engine

So i would like to see ONE big campaign:
Start with a little region and build that up to the ultimate goal....
the "Ruler of the WorldMarket"....

It will cost you some time... but i will gladly pay for it...
Maybe a -snack- between your updates and a NEW tittle... :D
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
User avatar
Lightbringer
General
Posts: 2973
Joined: May 23 2006
Location: Texas

Post by Lightbringer »

....huh?...

I'm a bit confused Bigstone. Are you honestly saying you have never noticed the Campaign game option? ...or that you dislike it as it is currently set up with increasingly larger regional "levels"?
nghtmre15
Major
Posts: 157
Joined: Jun 26 2006
Location: USA

Post by nghtmre15 »

If you try to make a giant world scenario (bypassing the country limits and any gameplay difficulties) with 200+ nations, you would lose the World Market that you would be trying to control. The World Market just takes over all nations not in play at the time, and if every nation was in play, there would be no World Market. Even if there was a placeholder Market, it would be crippled, and not much of a 'market' to anyone.

On topic, though, I disagree with the "no more updates" thing. I believe that SR2010 has one more update's worth of possibility in it. With a final update, certain issues (chemical weapons training when there are no chemical weapons to defend against, and various other issues removed from the game before going gold) can be resolved once and for all, creating what could truly be called a "finished and complete product". Basically, clean up the rough edges, and maybe add a few final features.

Of course, I'm in no position to be telling BG what to do (nor would I ever choose to). I can only offer my opinion.
In a world without sound, dancing... falling... I was snow.
The_Blind_One
Colonel
Posts: 388
Joined: May 28 2005

Post by The_Blind_One »

We just want a new SR2010 that is focused on long-term gameplay. Not one where you build up to bigger regions untill u fight the world. But maybe one where u develop to become france, or germany. or england, and try to work the world in your favor :evil:

When you play Paris in the france scenario, you can't ask help from the german states. it's all to boxed. More open un-linear gameplay is what we want. :D Isn't it? :P
User avatar
Lightbringer
General
Posts: 2973
Joined: May 23 2006
Location: Texas

Post by Lightbringer »

Ah, I see what you mean. Not sure you could morph 2010 that much though. It almost sounds more like roleplaying only as regional leaders instead of elves or barbarians... :)
Eric Larsen
Colonel
Posts: 350
Joined: Oct 25 2005
Location: Salinas, CA

Suggestions for Update 6

Post by Eric Larsen »

I agree that not much seems to have changed in update 5. I also want to see the game geared for more long-term world-level play. The linked campaigns just don't cut it.

I've been playing the World scenario Americas versus the World grouping variant as the World Union. I was able to get to tech level 125 and I saw that there is quite a missile gap between the USA and the rest of the world. I'd like to see that missile gap closed by seeing more Worldwide missile equivalents so that the rest of the world isn't screwed by an inexcusable missile gap.

I'd also like to see the techs get fixed, all of them. Nothing more frustrating than to see all those cool techs but well we really can't use them because they don't work.

Another thing I'd like to see is the game engine properly geared towards long-term world-level play. As I've played the Americas versus the World World scenario grouping variant I noticed there is illegal immigration going on. As the World Union I had 65 million incoming immigrants while the Americas had 4 million outgoing emigrants. I had 11 million outgoing emigrants while the Americas had 5 million incoming immigrants. :o Eeeks illegal aliens are amongst us. :roll: The First Wave is here. :wink: Evidently the World Market is still in the system for world level play even though officially it's supposed to be turned off. It also screws up the annual budgeted trade amount for world level play. I would imagine there's other areas where the supposed turned-off world market is still affecting game play at the world level.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen
User avatar
Legend
General
Posts: 2531
Joined: Sep 08 2002
Human: Yes
Location: Ancaster, Ontario - BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by Legend »

With the comments made that not much has changed in update 5 here is a quick summary of what we have included:

Update 5
2 new scenarios
3 missions (one submitted by RED)
3 groupings (one submitted by Eric Larsen)
60 new units, 7 new pictures
The Tech Reference Poster (PDF)
and over 40 game improvements and fixes(details are included in the readme) - and more under the hood improvements that aren't really note-worthy.

It seems to me that people are expecting major game changes but we are talking about an update. What we have experienced is that other games release expansion packs to include new features, new maps, new units, etc. in their games. We haven't done this.

I would like to know if anyone has or knows examples of another game that releases an update (or patch) that changes the game engine in a major way. Does anyone have examples of major game improvements found in other game within our genre or similar genres? Some examples would help us with future game development.

Another question that I have is... does anyone know any examples of games where they have the date the game was released and the dates of any updates. How long do other companies support their product after release? It's been over a year since our North American release. In comparison to other games, should we have stopped doing updates long ago or are we right on the mark with still releasing updates. I ask this question partially due to BigStones initial comment of "no more updates."


FYI - Here is a summary of what we have included since we released the game.

Updates 1-5
3 new scenarios
195 new unit additions
15 new unit pictures
8 new missions
19 new game features
180 games improvements / fixes
various maps improvements / fixes

-- Daxon
Il Duce
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 577
Joined: Aug 10 2005
Location: Venice - the Doge's palace on the Pacific.

Post by Il Duce »

...Under the circumstances -both from a marketing and quality of product perspective - I'd say you have done the right things. Essentially you have demonstrated that you believe in your product and are flexible enough to make improvements based on user feedback.

You have made a substantial investment in improvements - far more than most game producers - and hopefully, as you have seen in the forums here, you've developed a very loyal following.

SR2010 is a rare product - a game with a very long playability scope. As of update 5, there's a good three to five years of replays in the package, as you can always switch to a new continent and voila, it's a whole new game.

The suggestion that 5 updates is enough could be valid in the sense that, as a customer, I am basically ready for a new product - i.e. one that produces revenues, and thus provides longevity for your company, as well as one which is a different product for us players. I think you deserve that. As far as SR2010 needing a lot of upgrades... well, maybe the engine has been exploited to its outer reaches. maybe not.

I think that we might be ready for a different-but-similar kind of game from BG, and that may be BigStone's point. I know that I have been quite vocal for more emphasis on the diplomacy side of the game (for instance - wouldn't it be nice if there were an 'Annex Region' treaty that you could use on regions which are ready to capitulate to your rule without having to go to war and force a surrender?), but I am content with what we've seen so far. I think that many of the present 'requests for enhancements,' if bundled, might justify a version release (i.e. s second product or an add-on package such as was done with Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri).

It is obvious that SR2010 is as much a labor of love as an entrpreneurial venture, and the fact that you have been successful on both levels merits a certain recognition. Please do whatever you have to do to maintain your integrity.
Colorless green ideas sleep furiously [but otherwise, they do not worry and are happy].
BigStone
General
Posts: 1390
Joined: Dec 22 2004
Location: Holland

Post by BigStone »

^^ Could not said that better... :wink: ^^

I'm not disappointed nore complaining... I just hope you Goats are gonna do something new now... :wink:

As for other developers...
Yes i know one... Egosoft bringing out the X-series (spacesim)
They have also a very high memberscontribution.
In fact you can achieve some devlevels where you can contribute
to the gamedevelopment (i even had to sign a NDA before getting
access to that level).
But for some reason it went wrong... to many peeps pulling the strings.
And the result : a half finished game (X3) :evil:
But they have patched it a couple of times now...
NO MORE NOISY FISH [unless they are green & furiously]
I HAVE STILL A FISH IN MY EAR
red
General
Posts: 1092
Joined: Feb 14 2004
Location: New York

Post by red »

I'd rather like some clue on what their next game will be, even if they meanwhile do an Update 6. :)
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2649
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by George Geczy »

We're not in the position yet to be able to announce what we're doing next, but we have certainly been listening to the ideas on what 'core' changes would be of interest.

Obviously Supreme Ruler 2010 is not going to see any more significant changes - its design is pretty much set. There will be an Update 6, but don't expect much operational changes in it. Other than that, you'll have to wait just a bit longer to find out what our future holds :-)

-- George.
nghtmre15
Major
Posts: 157
Joined: Jun 26 2006
Location: USA

Post by nghtmre15 »

As I said before, one final update to smooth out the remaining rough edges (like the ones that I mentioned) is all that I would consider reasonable at this point.

With regards to BG's business model, I have never seen one like it before. A company that crafts a game over a long period of time, releases it, and then supports it with updates for twice as long as any other company I've ever seen (except Blizzard, but only because people find new ways to exploit their games).

I tell you this: Battlegoat has earned my eternal respect for being a company of such integrity. It is all too rare in today's gaming world, what with companies like EA that throw out one update/patch and move on to another new game. No matter what BG does next, if you all follow the same basic plan as with SR2010, I have no doubt that you will be successful. You have already created a word-of-mouth advertising system in your fans, and a new release will get a much larger initial following, and all of those fans will create new fans. Your network will get larger, and soon you can sell games almost entirely based on word-of-mouth advertising!

With regards to a future product, I agree with Il Duce. The next game needs to have a strong diplomatic aspect to it. I am obsessed with the intricacies of international diplomacy, but have yet to find a game that can accurately portray this extremely delicate field in modern times (or close). I'm thinking of a game that has a Cold War feel to it. I don't claim to know how feasible, popular, or overly ambitious that idea would be, but I'll say it anyway. I want a game where war is a serious undertaking, one that is not often chosen. When it is, it needs to be a serious commitment of manpower, supplies, popular support, and international agreements. I want in-depth diplomatic relations, with many varying options for interaction between countries. I want to be able to condemn a nation for holding military exercises on my borders. Fleshed out covert ops, guerrilla warfare, nuclear proliferation, the United Nations, things like that.

Of course, I would hardly consider such a project to be viable for anyone. I also know and understand that not everyone would want to play that game. Some of the ideas may be useful, though. At any rate, improved diplomacy, less focus on war (but still a valid choice), and some minor covert ops implementation (support terrorists, support insurgents, espionage, sabotage facility/unit). That's about all that I would really like to see. Know that, whatever you do, I will be following the news closely, and will almost definitely purchase it, no matter what it is.
In a world without sound, dancing... falling... I was snow.
maddog7667
Lieutenant
Posts: 79
Joined: Apr 21 2005

Post by maddog7667 »

i agree with nghtmre15 i will almost definitely purchase it, no matter what it is as well. if its made by battlegoat.
Eric Larsen
Colonel
Posts: 350
Joined: Oct 25 2005
Location: Salinas, CA

Changes not Seen

Post by Eric Larsen »

Daxon,
While there have been a lot of new scenarios and units what we're really wanting to see and we're not seeing is major improvements to the game system. I've seen the new diplomatic change and I think it stinks that the AI's are now more belligerent and cannot be mollified with daily bribes unless they're massive. I was chafing at the bit for the last month waiting for this update. After playing around with it for a few hours I'm not so enthusiastic because I can't get the tech trade diplomatic offers to reappear. Where the heck are the tech trade and unit design tech trade offers that I saw in update 4 before my last game when I got the formal alliance? After that those two tech trade offers disappeared and no matter what scenario I can't get them to reappear. I even played for about a week getting different diplomatic offers through and still they didn't appear.

I was really looking forward to playing my World grouping variant Americas versus the World as the Americas and I had intended to get those two diplomatic offers so that I didn't have to manually trade techs to cut down on playing time. I figured I'd play about 8 years of game time to get both regions up to tech level 125 and create awesome armies (after scrapping all the units at the beginning) for both of the most modern up-to-date weapons available. Plus I would also build up both economies so both would be self sufficient and would have high civilian morale plus give both max satellites. I wanted to create the most awesome AI opponent possible so that when I stopped helping the AI and it was time for war I'd have to fight an AI that was just as modern as I was plus didn't have an overly large army that would break it's bank too quickly. I found that whipping AI's that were behind on tech with overly large crappy armies plus pathetic economies just wasn't very entertaining or challenging.

It looks like there will be some learning curve for me to learn how to overcome the new diplomatic change. I figure I will get to where I want to be no matter how long it takes or what new challenges update 5 have been presented.

I saw some of the new units update 5 presented. Some crappy Indian carriers but not one single world equivalent for the US CVN's 79 or 81. Lots of new battleships for many regions which is nice but that takes up many "new units" when a worldwide or multiple one could provide the same benefit for many regions. I didn't see any worldwide missile equivalents for the better US missiles either, though it looked like a few more new missiles got done for the US. Instead of making more esoteric crap like Indian carriers that aren't worth squat anyway make more worldwide equivalents of the US CVN's 79 and 81 and other advanced weapons so that the game is better balanced. Make them available a tech level year or two or three later than when the US gets them but give the world a chance to counter US technological superiority. Same with missiles. The US has so many great missiles while the world has a lot of crap. Instead of more specific missiles for little regions make sure to make worldwide equivalents of the best US missiles so the world can keep pace albeit a little later than the leader of the pack.

What we really want is to get the game system right. No more silly little scenarios or missions, just give us a few more world level variations. I've been contemplating one for the new WW3 World scenario to help out in this direction. I also would like to see something better than the boring cookie-cutter assembly-line scenario design being done. Instead of new scenarios it's time for the scenario designer to go back and fine tune scenarios. How about some better ministers than the current "C+ List" cast of characters? Instead of the same boring unworkable economic setup how about giving each region more specific efficiencies and markups that will actually make sense for that region? While a help for humans I see this as much more helpful for the AI's if they're set out on a good economic path rather than it having to try to scramble towards it.

Probably the most important thing we want is a better AI to play against and in update 5 I see some indication of this in the research area where now the AI doesn't go nuts trying to fill research all the research slots on day 1. Unfortunately it adds one crappy research project a day and I haven't seen it do anything other than the same old stupid unit designs and metalstorm. I'm thinking metalstorm is really stupid for the AI to have since it's so poor at infrastructure investment and metalstorm units suck up supply like there's no tomorrow. I'd love to see the AI at the world level with no time limit researching economic boosters and other such smart techs that I've enjoyed myself. I research one project at a time and when that project gets down to one day left I add another so as not to lose any research investment. Sometimes that extends the research a day but I've found it better to research one thing at a time to get it quicker and enjoy it's benefits quicker. Too bad the AI can't be made that smart. Especially for short scenarios and missions it's really stupid to research multiple projects since that just ensures that none or very few ever get completed before the scenario ends.

I also saw where the Americas AI didn't build a whole slew of carriers on day 1, but it sure went nuts filling every unit and missile build slot just like before. Too bad the AI's don't make smaller better armies and not so many engineers. Engineers are nice, especially for construction, but they stink at defense and especially offense. Having some is good but the AI's are puking out way too many engineer units. It sometimes stacks one of them with other units which is good but far too often they're grouped together and easy to wipte out with tanks. The AI's tend to build such big armies that over time they just get too big to finance and I see the AI's have to drop their alert levels to afford to keep fighting.

Get the AI's building facilities other than military facilities. It gets rather tiresome having to overbuild my economy just to keep the AI afloat economically and I see where no good deed goes unpunished on the World Market score where the biggest importer scores bigtime.

In my next game I intend to actually turn off AI control of everything and play the World Union's economy so that I can have it construct it's economy. With only two regions having to control only one AI won't be a chore. Since I want to play long term I know the only way to get a great AI when the balloon finally goes up is to control that AI with lots of HI. That way I can control the AI's research and ensure it has everything I have including non-tradeable techs. When I finally turn the AI loose to control it's own destiny I know it won't be able to screw things up too badly and I'll have set the stage for it to be competitive economically and militarily.

We want to see the techs working properly, not having to wonder which techs now work or not and wondering when, if ever, they will be. I certainly don't like the idea that some techs just won't be worth researching because they don't work yet. It also makes me wonder what benefit they'll have if and when they are made to work because now their benefits are not longer listed. Should have colored them other than yellow so we knew they didn't work but would still know what they'll do when they do work.

I also think BG is making a big mistake not letting us know what's in an update before it's released. Because we have high regard for BG we expected a lot more from 6 months of update work. Unit upgrades, demolition, and minefields are but three features we have yet to see and want to see and not seeing them makes us frustrated. If we're not overly enthused with update 5 it's only because BG was childish in being secretive about what changes were in store for update 5. Had BG been smart and let us know what to expect earlier there wouldn't have been such a wave of disapointment expressed when it did come out.

Thank you George for atleast giving us some clue as to what to, and what not to, expect from update 6. Keeping a list of fixes in update 6 or new features enabled as you work on it will go a long way to keeping us informed as to what to expect the next time around and will save a lot of angst when it does come out.
Thanks,

Eric Larsen
User avatar
George Geczy
General
Posts: 2649
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Location: BattleGoat Studios
Contact:

Post by George Geczy »

Eric, some of the areas you mention did see attention in Update 5, thought of course these things tend to be 'evolutionary' rather than revolutionary.

Other elements (especially things relating to the 'one world' levels) don't fit well into the current engine design, and so there's only so far we can go with the time we have available.

While we are generally quite willing to discuss concepts and what we're thinking about, it is not as wise to discuss what is and/or is not going to be in an update, since that is subject to change - sorta the 'minefield effect'. Ever since minefields were mentioned for the original game people still ask 'where are the minefields', even though in my opinion that idea just wasn't going to work well and had to be scrapped.

I sense most people find the changes and improvements in Update 5 to be a decent set of stuff, especially for a game that's 12 months out from its original release. Hopefully the internal changes (performance improvements, etc) make the large maps, such as the world, more playable for people, and that's already a big step forward.

Some of your suggestions also run into a design philosophy question - that of 'realism' versus elements added for gameplay amusement. AI Diplomacy 'freebees' and powerful modern-day units for non-US regions are two examples that go against realistic design. Now, realistic design might not be as much fun, and so that's something we'll need to look at for future projects, at least as an option.

As mentioned in my earlier post, we're starting to reach the limits of where the SR2010 engine is going to take us, so big ideas like some of what you discuss are going to have to wait for a future project.

-- George.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”