Players as testers?

[madgamer]

When I was young and all they had was Avalon Hill and there yearly release of a new game it was common knowledge that the players would end up as game testers and there followed many,many,many rules changes (in prit form no computers then)
It seems to me that because AGEOD is releasing games with new ideas and formats and tries to please all players that there games need several patch's to get things right. There effort to make there games good is commendable but leads me now wait to buy one because my experience with AACW got worse as the patch count went up. I got to where I could not manage the production/unit replacement/reinforcement sub system because I ran out of men or supplies or money. There was a great deal of change from the released game and the game as it stood with th 1.10d patch and had I known that where it was by 1.10d in the beginning I would not have bought it because I just could not play it by the time I got 1.10d installed.
I think that games have only so much time in which to be developed and then is publish or perish. I admire a company that will develop a system engine through several games and then bring up the previous games with a patch.
First we had BoA then AACW and then BoA2. I think that I will buy more of AGEOD games but not when they are released but after they have been on the market for awhile. I wonder if I am the only person who feels this way.

Madgamer

[soundoff]

In some respects madgamer I do have a certain sympathy with the view you have expressed. I can recall once posting something in response to what seemed to me like a bevvy of quick AACW patches about AGEod slowing down the patch release process. As was pointed out to me though it all depends on where you want the game and AGEod to go. Whether you want it to stand still or evolve.

To its credit AGEod, brilliantly assisted by the dedication of some of its player base, offers first class support for its games. That same player base is also constantly helping to push the credibility and enjoyability of releases forward which is a big plus. Just look at the work of someone like Gray_Lensman. The game would be much much poorer IMO without work such as his, and he is not alone.

I do accept though that the difficult call is deciding what the cutoff point is if only because reality and playability are often poor bedfellows. It is one thing to iron out bugs in a program another to develop it. Most of the time the developments I reckon are spot on and only enhance the game but I accept that over some issues to some players it could feel as if the goalposts are moving. When it materialises the proposed change to supply I'm sure will be one such prime instance.

Mind you I dont really think that waiting until a game has been out for a while (and several patches released) is necessarily a sound strategy. It is if patches only address 'bugs'. AGEod does seem dedicated to developing its games as well as correcting errors (hurray) so patches are likely to include improvements. That will automatically mean, like with this game, that the manual quickly becomes obsolete. At least diving in and purchasing the games from the start makes keeping up with changes and understanding the games easier. I know I wish I'd discovered AACW sooner.

Anyway thats my tuppence worth.....not that tuppence worth counts for much these days. My one final comment though is that games should be 'fun' to play. So if the game is not providing you with 'fun' then put it to one side. Go on to something else. But take it down from the shelf once in a while, dust it off and give it another go. I often find that having a break from something helps me come back to it more refreshed and suddenly difficulties I previously had in understanding disappear.

[arsan]

Hi

And if you don't like the improvements or change made on a particular patch because you think they make the game too difficult or whatever, the solution is an easy one: don't patch!
Nobody forces you to patch AACW to 1.10 if you prefer the gameplay of 1.07 or 1.08 or so...
Really, making AGEOD patching and improving commitment look as something negative doesn't seem fair to me.
Specially on a world where most of the company's left games abandoned after a couple of patches, no matter his state, or charge for patches selling them as "expansions"... I could tell names... but i won't

Regards

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[Clovis]

Totally agreeing with Gray_Lensman. I definitly prefer playing patched wargames than having no wargames.

Few realize how small is a wargamer publisher today. AGEOD has produced 4 AGE engineered games since 2006, ie about as much games as AGEOD employees.

As much I know, Panther Games is currently almost depending of one person work ( Arjuna), 2 for 3 (G GRigsby) are really that, ie 3 peoples; Franck Hunter is a lonely programmer. Of course, Matrix furnishes some services but basically the manpower available is pretty ridiculous.

That's the same with boardgames today. But Boardgames are made almost essentially by people having a job. So they have time to playtest intensely before release their game.

Computer wargaming is unfortunatly much more time consuming for development. To very special exception, it requires full time involvment of one or two guys who have to get money. So the release date is always - and always will- determined by tthe need to get some money to keep afloat.

I perfectly understand and agree in a perfect world a computer wargame should be released after extensive playtesting, ie one full year of test and correction. But in our real world, it will signify Company death. No more wargamer. And waiting to buy will slowly ive the sme results.

Moreover, AACW is a special case. It's an huge improvment on BOA, with a myriad of new features. By this way,AACW was a new experience needing tweakings. THe 2 subsequent games, NCP and WIA, with less innovations for gameplay, have reached by patches quickly an almost finished state. If you look at the last WIA patch, you will notice how few are the real changes in the code, the effort being strongly focused on data corrections.

AGE is now sufficiently mature to be playable out of the box, without any big bugs. Data refinement and evolutions of gameplays are rather small and not really significant.

That's IMHO largely sufficient to get immediatly pleasure to play AGEOD games.

[Daxil]

When I was young and all they had was Avalon Hill

'

Hehe I have the AH Civil War boardgame with all the little parts and maps to this day. I wonder if the designers of this game used it as a model at all.

[madgamer]

Thanks for your two cents worth (american money :-) )as I am always interested in other opinions, much food for thought in your post

Madgamer

[madgamer]

'

Hehe I have the AH Civil War boardgame with all the little parts and maps to this day. I wonder if the designers of this game used it as a model at all.

Its odd but if you take a look at the old boardgame of "Wellington Victory" the map & scale iare almost exactly the same as the tallonsoft battle of Waterloo but I am willing to bet that the designers of the Talonsoft game never even heard of the boardgame.

Madgamer

[madgamer]

Yes I to am aware of the way games are done in the 21 century. It is not a perfect world indeed. Part of my problem is that I love AACW but I have a problem with the interface and certain sub systems within the game. I do not have a clue as to why in the earlier versions of AACW I did not have the problems with the parts of the game I mentioned in my post.
I have no clue as to why I can't seem to build and raise troops and why I can't keep from running out of something like money, men, or war supplies. I have no clue as to why I do not have any idea of how the navel game works (or does not work) and I have no idea as to why I seem to be the only one who has problems of handling the scope and interface of AACW.
It must be me and not the game because I do n ot hear others saying what I am saying. AACW is a game I love but do not have the brain power or ability to play and understand.
I can't deal with the map and all the regions and the raid rules and I have a problem with knowing where I am or where I should go and how I should go there. In all the years I have played these games this has never happened to me. Never was there ever a game I wanted to play and understand and enjoy but did not have the ability to do so till AACW came along.
For me it is not just a simple "well don't patch" kind of thing. The way games are developed these days patching is necessary and 90% of what is there is great. I thought there must be other players who have trouble with production and unit building and think that there have been major changes in these part of the game with each patch...but I guess I am wrong and it just must be me (SIGH). SO I apologize to all for taking up you time and wasting space on this forum with my rants.
I will most likely buy the BoA2 game and have some of the same problems but maybe this time I will understand enough to play against the AI. In reading this post I don't understand some of it and I wrote it so if in comes across as the mumbled words of a ranting mind don't give it any thought.
I will in the end keep trying to play the game because I love it and have a high self abuse level LOL

thanks to all
Madgamer

[pasternakski]

Part of my problem is that I love AACW but I have a problem with the interface and certain sub systems within the game. I do not have a clue as to why in the earlier versions of AACW I did not have the problems with the parts of the game I mentioned in my post.

thanks to all
Madgamer

Well, I can't let a fellow Iowegian hang out here to dry. I realize that by posting I am inviting any number of the "volunteer brigade" to rip me personally without consequence, because they have captured these games and turned them to their own tastes without reference to me.

So, rip away. Talk at length here and on the forums of companies where AGEod markets its games, asserting that I am some dingaling or nincompoop despite my early almost fanatical support of BoA and AACW. Shoot your mouth off about what an idiot I am because I continue to come here looking for support for the games I have bought and that have been changed by latecomers with their own agendas to pursue into strange creatures I no longer know how to play. Laugh derisively at me because you can deduce, then freely talk about, my online habits in doing so.

I can't connect with these games anymore. They were fun when I first bought them, now they - to me - are a morass of uncontrolled modifications that have no interest in my understanding or enjoying them. As far as I am concerned, the original developers and publishers - bless 'em, I liked 'em so much and supported them wholeheartedly - have allowed these silk purses to be turned into sows' ears.

Hi ho. Good luck, Madgamer, this former Walford and Mount Vernon boy, who seems to share your frustration, is permanently outta here once again.

[tagwyn]

You mean fellow "Hawkeye?" I have never heard the word you used. Perhaps if you learned English you could play the games? LOL. "papy"

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted

[soundoff]

Yes I to am aware of the way games are done in the 21 century. It is not a perfect world indeed. Part of my problem is that I love AACW but I have a problem with the interface and certain sub systems within the game. I do not have a clue as to why in the earlier versions of AACW I did not have the problems with the parts of the game I mentioned in my post.
I have no clue as to why I can't seem to build and raise troops and why I can't keep from running out of something like money, men, or war supplies. I have no clue as to why I do not have any idea of how the navel game works (or does not work) and I have no idea as to why I seem to be the only one who has problems of handling the scope and interface of AACW.
It must be me and not the game because I do n ot hear others saying what I am saying. AACW is a game I love but do not have the brain power or ability to play and understand.

Where on earth did you ever get the notion that you are the only one in this predicament madgamer. Truth to tell is that I'm another one often in the same leaky boat and I'm pretty sure there are more in our camp than there are in the tents of those who know and understand the true depth and scope of the game. I really dont think, there are many Clovis's, Jabbers, Runyons etc around. It just seems that way because they are always trying to offer help to the rest of us poor mortals so their post outputs are prodigious.

My very first post on these boards was a vitriolic rant about somewhere there was a great game here but how you got to it was beyond me....and that was after decades of AH boardgames, tabletop wargaming and computer wargaming from Atari, Beeb and Commodore onwards. apy: I've been very harsh too on the Grand Campaign Board where I was really hoping to learn but the pace has been so so slow.

For all of that though I've grown to love the game even if at times I still have severe problems with it. Like you the naval side I dont understand at all and although folks on these boards try hard to educate me and others I still can't work out whether its just for flavour or whether it has any real purpose. So I end up moving ships around in boxes just because they are there to be moved around (strike any cords?) . Most unsatisfactory but much of the rest of the game more than makes up for it.

Supply I find the same. I totally understand the concept, in many ways its fundamental. But 2 hexes, 3 hexes, more by river. Affected by terrain and weather conditions and who knows what else but with no easy way of working out whether supplies are getting through other than clicking on each individual force and monitoring the supply icons. Most unwieldy but I live with it and if the odd division starves well that is just down to fog of war.

Then there is battle reports. Now on that I could right a book. Even those who know the game far far better than I ever will often can only guess at why a result turned out as it did. For a long long while that really did irritate me and when on the odd occasion I get what I consider to be a daft result (say where a whole corp gets wiped out ) it still makes me gulp.

Mind you I find the game absorbing, intriguing and thoroughly addictive. PBEM mode it makes me think. I ponder a move, alter my mind several times. Go back to the number I originally thought of cross my fingers and place my trust in the luck of the dice.

If you can manage it I'd really recommend PBEM play particularly if you can play against someone who has a better grasp on the game than yourself. Its amazing how the more experienced opponents are quite willing to let you into their thinking and strategies (not at the time I hasten to add) which helps the learning process tremendously. To get a considered response to why did they do that? or how come I never thought of doing that? does help in taking your own game forward.

But believing you are alone in having difficulties is so so wide of the mark.

[Clovis]

Yes I to am aware of the way games are done in the 21 century. It is not a perfect world indeed. Part of my problem is that I love AACW but I have a problem with the interface and certain sub systems within the game. I do not have a clue as to why in the earlier versions of AACW I did not have the problems with the parts of the game I mentioned in my post.
I have no clue as to why I can't seem to build and raise troops and why I can't keep from running out of something like money, men, or war supplies. I have no clue as to why I do not have any idea of how the navel game works (or does not work) and I have no idea as to why I seem to be the only one who has problems of handling the scope and interface of AACW.
It must be me and not the game because I do n ot hear others saying what I am saying. AACW is a game I love but do not have the brain power or ability to play and understand.
I can't deal with the map and all the regions and the raid rules and I have a problem with knowing where I am or where I should go and how I should go there. In all the years I have played these games this has never happened to me. Never was there ever a game I wanted to play and understand and enjoy but did not have the ability to do so till AACW came along.
For me it is not just a simple "well don't patch" kind of thing. The way games are developed these days patching is necessary and 90% of what is there is great. I thought there must be other players who have trouble with production and unit building and think that there have been major changes in these part of the game with each patch...but I guess I am wrong and it just must be me (SIGH). SO I apologize to all for taking up you time and wasting space on this forum with my rants.
I will most likely buy the BoA2 game and have some of the same problems but maybe this time I will understand enough to play against the AI. In reading this post I don't understand some of it and I wrote it so if in comes across as the mumbled words of a ranting mind don't give it any thought.
I will in the end keep trying to play the game because I love it and have a high self abuse level LOL

thanks to all
Madgamer

I perfectly agree AGEOD games aren't bullproof and AACW could be better in some aera, notably graphical representations of the command chains or divisions. I agree too map size and great numbers of units are developing here and there in micromananaging which could be allievated. And last, I understand how much painful was the rule changes. BUT the game was playable at start and I always considered to be better to have a patched game than a AACW 2 incorporating all corrections.

[berto]

...and that have been changed by latecomers with their own agendas to pursue into strange creatures...

So I (and others) came to the party later than you, so what? What does this have to do with anything?

As for my personal agenda, I don't apologize one iota for lobbying for (and helping to discuss and playtest) better realism and affinity to history.

... this former Walford and Mount Vernon boy, who seems to share your frustration, is permanently outta here once again.

Please, make it so. Bye bye!

[Clovis]

So I (and others) came to the party later than you, so what? What does this have to do with anything?

As for my personal agenda, I don't apologize one iota for lobbying for (and helping to discuss and playtest) better realism and affinity to history.


Please, make it so. Bye bye!

let Pasternakski grumble. The only and wholly sufficient advice he deserves is to play with the 1.0 version of the Ageod game.. Writing much doesn't signify saying much ( and doesn't induce being much listened).

[Daxil]

For all of that though I've grown to love the game even if at times I still have severe problems with it.

It's one of the more solidly built games of its genre out there IMO. Once you understand how things work battle outcomes make more sense etc. For example, I was really confused about how I'd end up attacking across a riverr sometimes in provinces previously 100% miine, then realized it was because each "day" counts and the enemy arrived before me with a big stack. I was confused why the Union kept beating the CSA in clear terrain, then realized they have b etter art etc etc. Once the mechanics dawned upon me I began to enjoy the game more and appreciate its depth.

It's a very well done game for such a small team.

[Pocus]

It has been said again and again that the few individuals which are modifying the data or the map for AACW are fully acknowledged by the core team, and a few are even part-time employees of the studio (Primasprit started as a beta and is now a developer, with a pay and official position among the team).

So there is not difference in vision or in quality of data between say Michael (Gray_Lensman) and say Philippe Thibaut. What is done by Michael could have been done by the core team, period. (In fact no, we don't have days with 72 hours, and we still need to sleep...).

I don't see the need to rehash again and again the same topics. If you feel that AACW has some weird features compared to the 1.00 version rendering it unplayable (I would like to get details of these alegated erroneous features by the way!), then we will bear the consequences, with one customer lost for future games (I guess), and that's it. You are all voting with your purses anyway...

And so far people pleased by the constant polishing of AACW, transforming it into a Classic, as some says, seems to please far more people than it bothers them. So far, so good.

[PhilThib]

I can't connect with these games anymore. They were fun when I first bought them, now they - to me - are a morass of uncontrolled modifications that have no interest in my understanding or enjoying them. As far as I am concerned, the original developers and publishers - bless 'em, I liked 'em so much and supported them wholeheartedly - have allowed these silk purses to be turned into sows' ears.

This is your opinion and concerns yourself alone. All the players who have volunteered to work on our games have improved them, and we support their work. The nature of these games and work on same is to become more 'complex' when you add content and features, but they do not become "worse" in our mind because of this...

In addition, nothing prevents you to play with version 1.00... if you do not like those changes that we have validated...

[Ejack]

I'm an old-timer in wargaming; though not quite as old as some I suppose. But do you guys remember No Greater Glory and those type of strategic war games. Those were dreamy days of bad AI, terrible graphical resolution, and either completely unpredictable outcomes or way too predictable outcomes, and yet games like that are classics. I loved that game and still play it on occasion for fun (I memorized the steps to winning in 8 turns). Those games without needs for patches and improvements were made that way because they were very simple compared to what we demand from today's developers.
I don't long for the good ole days at all. This is the type of game I dreamed of back in the EGA 386 college days.

Before I buy a game these days I always check out the resources online and see if the game has a modding community and good support. To me this is a sign that the game is trying to be innovative and the company believes in supporting the product.

If you don't like modding and patches there are plenty of development companies out there making really bad games with bad support and unresponsive support teams that are mostly stable and simplistic and IMHO completely fail to advance the wargaming genre. Or go back and buy and play out of date titles on old systems. I have seen very little change since I bought this title in the basic engine, except for improvements in AI response (which is wonderful btw), graphics (again major thanks), and bug-fixes, but even if I did I would think (hey, 2 games for the price of 1! what a deal! and run a double install of 1.XX and 1.11) .

Phillipe emailed me on this weekend on a error fix! Are you kidding me? Get some sleep man! I can handle a small error until Monday. And as far as customer service you guys are lousy. Maybe no one explained to you that you are a computer software company. That means dead phones, useless website faqs, undeliverable emails and random viral software included in installation. Is this French pride, refusing to adopt a tried and true Silicon Valley business model? Maybe you can work on that for the next update

[Franciscus]

I will not enter in this old argument, having already voiced many times what I think of AGEOd and their policy towards their customers.
Nevertheless, I feel that the right to a free opinion and speech is very important; even, sometimes, to be inconvenient

May I ask why there is not in this forum a separate sub-forum for "rants and raves", as in other game forums ?. I personally think that could be a good idea...

[Rafiki]

Well, I can't let a fellow Iowegian hang out here to dry. I realize that by posting I am inviting any number of the "volunteer brigade" to rip me personally without consequence, because they have captured these games and turned them to their own tastes without reference to me.

So, rip away. Talk at length here and on the forums of companies where AGEod markets its games, asserting that I am some dingaling or nincompoop despite my early almost fanatical support of BoA and AACW. Shoot your mouth off about what an idiot I am because I continue to come here looking for support for the games I have bought and that have been changed by latecomers with their own agendas to pursue into strange creatures I no longer know how to play. Laugh derisively at me because you can deduce, then freely talk about, my online habits in doing so.

I can't connect with these games anymore. They were fun when I first bought them, now they - to me - are a morass of uncontrolled modifications that have no interest in my understanding or enjoying them. As far as I am concerned, the original developers and publishers - bless 'em, I liked 'em so much and supported them wholeheartedly - have allowed these silk purses to be turned into sows' ears.

Hi ho. Good luck, Madgamer, this former Walford and Mount Vernon boy, who seems to share your frustration, is permanently outta here once again.

pasternakski, I don't know what kind of information you're sitting on, but I can assure you that the original developers and publishers are exactly the same as the current ones. I also am disappointed that you assert that it's a given that you will be laughed at and ridiculed when you know that isn't the case and that you practically withdraw from the discussion you clearly are seeking before anyone gets to answer the issues you seem to want to raise.

I also can't help but wonder if you have any experience in the role of beta-tester for any games developed/published within these genres? If you had, you would know that the developers rely heavily on the effort of volunteers to get the games out the door. Work done by volunteers that ends up getting included in official patches has at the very least been approved by the devteam, and are in fact in many cases the results of efforts done by volunteers based on requests from the devteam. To regard the devteam and the betas/volunteers as two entirely separate things that live separate lives without anything to do with eachother is a view so detached from reality that it makes me, as someone who knows from the inside how the process works, cringe at the thought of it.

Then there's the old adage that "decisions are made by the people who show up". If you haven't liked the way things have been changed, then no-one has been stopping you from giving any and all constructive criticism you wish to offer. If you have gotten to a point where you don't feel it's worth the hassle, then that is your prerogative, but you can't expect the AGEOD team to pick your brain when your (virtual) mouth stays shut. Looking back at the postings you've made, over a year ago, you voiced a clear opposition to a "ships auto-return to harbor"-feature, which AFAIK never was considered seriously for inclusion in the game by the devs. Previous to that, you provided some feedback about some things, of which some where in line with how things ended up getting addressed and other not. However, I also have to say that I can only agree with what GShock and Gray Lensman are saying; the devteam gets to call the shots, not you, even though you have bought one of the games.

Let's take a look at some of the things that have happened since the game was released:

• Various scenarios have been added. Bigus, a volunteer, has been instrumental in this, and other volunteers have pitched in with playtesting, feedback, etc.
• A lot of the previously blank-headed generals now have their mugshots on full display in-game. These have been made by Jabberwock, a volunteer, and Jackfox, another volunteer, and other volunteers have provided feedback and insights throughout the process.
• If you were to compare the in-game map upon release, the current in-game and various atlases portraying things, you'll see that the current in-game map is a whole lot closer to representing the conditions during ACW than it did upon the game's release. The work on railroads should be pretty well-known if you haven't lived under a rock for the past year, but there are also other things, like the adjustment of the location of forts, the existence and use of canals, entry-point to harbors, etc. This is due to a large effort spearheaded by Gray Lensman, a volunteer, and has seen loads of other volunteers contributing and providing feedback.

I cannot for the life of me see how any of these changes have done nothing but improve the game, adding to its enjoyment and playability.

And herein lies my challenge to you, pasternakski: what exactly is it that these "modders" and "latecomers with agendas" have done that you find so heinous and damaging that you consider the game to be nigh-on destroyed?

I have to say that what you've been saying in your postings reminds of a guy going to his doctor, saying "Doc, you gotta help me, I've started hurting real bad. You gotta fix it!" The doctor says "Well, I'll see what I can do. Where does it hurt? How does it hurt? Can you give me some more details?" "Doc, I've payed good money to be here, so that's something you should be able to find out yourself; just go ahead and fix me already! I'm really hurting here!" and the doctor has no idea of knowing what to think of things, other than that the guy in front of him needs something to get done.

[Rafiki]

Please, make it so. Bye bye!

[color="Blue"]There's no need to stoop to any levels of any kind here. No need to let this discussion turn personal, when it so far has stayed nicely on topic.[/color]

[Rafiki]

May I ask why there is not in this forum a separate sub-forum for "rants and raves", as in other game forums ?. I personally think that could be a good idea...

[color="Blue"]It is because we have seen no use for ranting or raving for ranting or raving's sake. If someone has a grievance they wish to voice, we wish to hear it, but preferably it will be voiced in a constructive manner and within the context of the game(s) in question.[/color]

[berto]

[color="Blue"]There's no need to stoop to any levels of any kind here. No need to let this discussion turn personal, when it so far has stayed nicely on topic.[/color]

Right, sorry.

[Comtedemeighan]

I think all the patches are a great thing for this game this game is getting better and better with age. I will admit I was initially frustrated by this game it got to the point where I wanted to throw my laptop out the window a few times but I knew that there was a great game here I just had to figure it out. Now ACW is the only game I've been playing for months some nights I lay awake thinking about moves I wanna do the next night when I get an hour or two to play. This is in my opinion one of the greatest war games I have ever played. I love the fact with each patch I get a better product I get more historic railroads and canals added to the game thanks to Grey I mean cmon this latest patch added tons of great portraits of leaders that used to be blanks. I think anybody that thinks the patches are a bad thing are crazy. I say keep up the good work guys. And because of all the cool stuff AGEOD does I will continue to give them my hard earned $$$ my next purchase will be WIA as soon as my wife lets me buy it

[Franciscus]

[color="Blue"]It is because we have seen no use for ranting or raving for ranting or raving's sake. If someone has a grievance they wish to voice, we wish to hear it, but preferably it will be voiced in a constructive manner and within the context of the game(s) in question.[/color]

I understand your decision, of course. Nevertheless, let me point out that Pasternaksi's post was clear in his intention of not being constructive in any way or interested in engaging in a fruitful or meaning discussion. As such, I am afraid, but all the subsequent posts (including dev's and admin) disputing for the nth time an argument with someone who is not listening and is not interested, are nothing more than a long "rant and rave". Not productive, intersting, or meaningful in any positive way.

Just my 2 cents

[Rafiki]

Luckily, such occurrences are so few and far between that they don't warrant a forum of their own

[Dudosh]

It seems to me that because AGEOD is releasing games with new ideas and formats and tries to please all players that there games need several patch's to get things right.

Madgamer

Hm, from my person at own i say: What?? I will be used as a tester for Ageods Products?? Yes? gimme more to test please (that is my personal meaness), and like also someone other told: You don`t need to patch your game if you don`t like it, but I think the people here make the game step by step better as it is now (how you can make a game better when it is perfect? ), keep on the good work please

[Gray_Lensman]

deleted