Patch #4 release update!

Status
Not open for further replies.
Two more days to go. Are we going to get a announcement from BA re the patch its release or delay. Don't care one way or the other, would just like to be told what's happening. Not too much to ask is it?
I cant speak for BA so wont but there is a lot of work ongoing and things being tuned, added and fixed. Whatever, whenever, it will be comprehensive and it will make the game very very playable. I dont think we can have the illusion that everyone will be satisfied; some people never are, but it has come a long way.
 
I have read through this post topic the last few days and thought I would put my two cents in ☺

I think alot of the negative posts by members are quite harsh, taking aim at BA and the 'broken' game, and are not constructive. I think alot of the negative comments need to be put into perspective. BA are not a massive company with huge resources in comparison to others. They have released a game and committed to patch updates, they certainly haven't abandoned the game or released a game that over promised and under delivered. I think that is a very positive approach.

I would think BA would more than anyone want a quality game they can be proud of and that they get good reputation to improve their company etc. Games are their business, they want it to succeed.

I do think their communication could be a bit better but then again not every game gets an active community like this so it is actually a big positive for the development of the game. However being such an active community, the broken communication from BA is probably heightened because of this and exacerbated a bit. Also many people have different and conflicting views, many rightly so, so it is very difficult for BA to get it perfect, they can only do their best.

This is just my view of this and I respect people's views but I do think the negativity and arrogance of some comments won't make any positive impacts on the game.
 
I just want to point out how disappointing it is that that's the goal of the 4th patch of a 2nd iteration game.
That is true and I am not defending that; my sole goal and that of the beta groep, both the forum members and the programmers at BA, is to improve what there is so that we can have an enjoyable game to play....
 
I just want to point out how disappointing it is that that's the goal of the 4th patch of a 2nd iteration game.

i'd argue it's unfair actually... the current game is obviously playable - i've got plenty of hours in to prove that. but there's no denying it was well short of the hopes of everyone.

i think this patch will give us a very good game.
 
i'd argue it's unfair actually... the current game is obviously playable - i've got plenty of hours in to prove that. but there's no denying it was well short of the hopes of everyone.

i think this patch will give us a very good game.

I've been mostly quiet and agreeing with the mods/testers who're stating that things are on the improve and that the month hasn't ended etc. Although in relation to your response to Markkkkkk's post, I'd argue it is not unfair. I'd argue the game is not playable unless you decide to get into technicalities about what "playable" is. That's the only way it can be claimed.

When you set a field and go to bowl and then fielders are not there at all when a catch should be taken, the "game" is not playable, unless you can say a game with no contest or fairness is playable. Teleporting fielders and the game deciding where they go etc, isn't fair at all. Results get changed by that bug alone, amidst others.

I can understand if this is fixed in testers versions and they simply don't have to deal with it. For me it has affected results badly in several games, rendering them basically down to luck which doesn't sound like a game to me. It sounds like from responses earlier that it's amongst the many things finally fixed?
 
I've been mostly quiet and agreeing with the mods/testers who're stating that things are on the improve and that the month hasn't ended etc. Although in relation to your response to Markkkkkk's post, I'd argue it is not unfair. I'd argue the game is not playable unless you decide to get into technicalities about what "playable" is. That's the only way it can be claimed.

When you set a field and go to bowl and then fielders are not there at all when a catch should be taken, the "game" is not playable, unless you can say a game with no contest or fairness is playable. Teleporting fielders and the game deciding where they go etc, isn't fair at all. Results get changed by that bug alone, amidst others.

I can understand if this is fixed in testers versions and they simply don't have to deal with it. For me it has affected results badly in several games, rendering them basically down to luck which doesn't sound like a game to me. It sounds like from responses earlier that it's amongst the many things finally fixed?

You make a fair point. It is certainly not possible to play the game for long without coming up against frustrating issues and that field one is the most prominent (for me the AI field and bowling changes are equally bad).

But it is possible to.play the game inspite of those frustrations and that is how mean it when i say it is playable.

I ahev played a far higher proportion of my matches to completion in DBC17 than I ever did in DBC14 before Franco's hack.
 
Wicket witch...? Touché (Wisdom/Wisdem).

Being honest I thought the first AFL game (Live) was very good the second not so, really hoping for the third we seem to be in the same boat with DBC17 not polished but getting there.

AFL Live was developed by Big Ant. Wicked Witch are a company that, to my knowledge, specialises in porting games, hence all of their games tend to come off as rehashes of previous work by better studios (e.g. the AFL Live versus AFL Live 2 problem).
 
Yep we'll see next friday mate, I just get the impression its going to be a pretty decent game.

I know ww probably dont have the best track record... actually in truth I know from first hand experience with afl live 2 what they are capable of producing from time to time, funny that you say that they just do re hashes of already existing games because afl live 2 definitely didnt feel anything like afl live 1 which was imo the best Australian sports game... ever? That is unless swc 99 was an Australian developed game?

From my op my point is BA are using the same publisher as afl evo, evo has had miles better advertising than dbc 17, BA have pretty well said dbc 17 was the publishers fault for rushing it. I'm just saying I'm not so certain these days.

Oh yeah that gameplay was a 4 player local game, edited stats on low difficulty so its probably not the best gameplay to go off of.

Even the graphics look really outdated. Nothing I've seen from AFL Evolution fills me with confidence. I guess we'll see, but with Wicked Witch's trackrecord, and what little they've actually been willing to show us (and the low quality of what we've seen), I'd be bracing for a disappointment.
 
just get it fixed simples we have all been sold a BETA for £50 no ifs and buts about it the game has so much potential to be great but when put on the market for £50 or whatever price you paid the game should not have these bugs it should be working. this game as been broke since day 1 and bigant should be busted they butts in embarrassment to fix the BETA that they have sold.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Top