So, Data is going to continue on Cortex Command, and whatever side jobs he has along the lines, as normal.

I honestly appreciate the work Data has put in, despite "Lulls". Although still in an unfinished state, and despite more than a few disapointments with the game itself, this community (And the game) has kept me around longer than any other.

Even shorter version:
Game still has flaws and stuff needs to be added and fixed. I still love it though.

Also, a word of advice, just be more clear in your release next time, might save you a lot of whining on the part people not feeling like they got their money's worth.

That said, I can understand the anger about CC, and I think it really boils down to 2 points.

1. The Campaign. For the longest time, we had several missions that, while unconnected and didn't really mean anything, were fun to do. We also had some more of those, provided by community members that were glorious. The thought of a long string of these hand crafted missions all connected into a coherent plot is pretty compelling, and I think I can safely say we all want that.
What REPLACED the campaign was what, in my opinion, should be called Strategy Mode. There are no predefined missions, it's, well, it's a shiny Skirmish mode. I think that's the main problem, it doesn't feel like a Campaign, it feels like an extended Skirmish with no real driving purpose behind it. The Missions had a purpose, I remember playing Dummy Assault dozens of times and feeling like a badass ninja assassinating a brain. With the Metagame, it's just "Shoot some guys that are trying to kill you".

2. The word "Complete". You said that Complete is for a stage when the game is playable and works, well, not everyone thinks the same way. A lot of people will unconsciously link Complete and Finished, and with Skirmish and Skirmish 2.0 (the Metagame), it just doesn't feel like a finished game. If it was just the next B##, then you would still have no problems. But you put out what should be a new build in a way that implied it was done and over, and not going to receive more work.

Solution? Get the Dev team to make a bunch of missions for a campaign (I KNOW they're good at it), and release 1.1 (soon) that adds more content somehow, to show people that this is NOT the final version of your game.

Hmm, where to start...
Now, what I say, I take no sides on.
First of all I don't think that was ever said.. and even if you were trying to get a point across at least use a quote what data actually said. (Also you missed a quotation mark)

Second of all He may not have answered that question in his previous post but I think he did in this one.. unless you were asking something else, in which case ignore the quote.

Third of all, As an art student, I know that there is a difference between an insult or even a compliment and criticism. An insult/compliment doesn't help the person you are criticizing, it will only make them feel worse or better which doesn't necessarily help them in their performance in either their current or future works. Giving an insult won't make the person change their way of working, they will only feel worse WHILE working but if you were to say "I don't like it because..." then if will help them. Giving a compliment also doesn't help unless you are being specific, say I said "I love it!" well, that's great but WHAT do you like about it. This will help the person continue to use whatever you liked in his or her future projects.

Fourth of all, as everyone else, I too was confused about the change from builds to version and also assumed that it was a "finished product"

i don't think anyone can really see any of this from Data's point of view.
the guy has been working on this ♥♥♥♥ thing for over a ♥♥♥♥ decade. a decade.

i say it again, working on the same project, for a decade.

no one can even come close to being in his shoes.

so when he finally gets a build out that's half acceptable, that practically has bits of his soul weaved into the thread of the game, everyone turns ♥♥♥♥♥ and complains.

even unfinished, i think it was majorly cathartic for CC to be released for real and for that matter ON STEAM.


i don't see data trying to mislead anyone. all i see is a rushed release that was probably intensely therapeutic for the dev team, even if it wasn't that great of a release.

Okay, no software is truely finished at 1.0. But I don't think it's so weird to think that a program at 1.0 is at least functioning properly and has content that has somewhat been promised during development.
Point remains that this game is far from functioning like it should and should not have been released on steam.
I don't have a lot of experience with steam, but the games I bought on steam are in a state where one could call them finished.
Bug free, lots of content, etc. (At least after a patch or two.)

Anyway, enough of my ranting. I do hope you'll continue with your game, because in my opinion up to B26 one of the best games of all times. Maybe later builds will get better again, I dunno. Honestly, I've lost all hope for it though. Hope you don't mind.

“After the end of the Builds, the DRLFF was split into two - critics and defenders. This marked the beginning of the era known as the Forum War.”

It's not a 100% bug free track record lemme tell you that.

Personally? I find the game fun, whether B20, B27, B28, 1.0, whatever the ♥♥♥♥ it is labeled as the game itself is good so I don't see a reason to flip ♥♥♥♥ just because the numbering system changed and the game didn't change too much beyond some more "fleshing out" of content.

Just the fact that you guys think labeling it B28 would somehow make the situation better shows a deep flaw in (other's)human reasoning in my opinion.

Well I'm glad this has moved to the realm of sensibility and criticism instead of useless insults, thank you particularly to non for that. I'm hoping that when I look back on my posts I don't think I'm a bloody idiot.

Definitely this, after bugfixes, optimization and fully balanced and fleshed out factions, this is what I'd like to have. The current campaign is pretty damn boring (weegee's in honestly better); it's shallow and repetitive and unless a whole whack of special missions and more depth was added to it, a scenario campaign would probably just be more fun. In that light, having both would be great.

As for the labeling, nice to see that clarified. I was pretty annoyed when I thought this was more or less the final version, with maybe one small bugfix release left.

I think i should just throw my chip into this mix pile of hate, flame, Childishness and Senseable comments on all party's.

I believe Gotcha is mainly right, on most points, I too was highly disappointed with the friendly fire being taken out (which in my opinion was a element to the game personality, Missing a shot, as a bullet flew past a AI, hitting your own troop, while you're planning a sneak attack, a miss judged throwing of a grenade, or explosive d shot, killing your own men, always had been enjoyable to me.) now if friendly fire was a option, it would had been very enjoyable, the game itself that is, It would appeal to a more variety of people, rather than supplying to just one side.

Now on the point of positives reviews/ comments about this game, i believe roughly 70% of that was purely fanatic fanboy's, people whom trying to justify their purchase, blindly saying the game is great and perfect. the other 30%, either believe their purchased is justified and feel themselves that the game is complete, which is fair enough, It is generally up to the buyer if they feel a game is completed, for example, when i purchase terraria just before Christmas last year, It felt like such a complete game, perfect for what that game set out to be, but much to my surprise the massive update during Christmas.

Now, that not to say that those people who bashing the game are all justified and has a reason in their saying, there people like Mackerel and gotcha, who generally have a reason to be slightly angry and outburst, because they are both old people whom pre purchase the game, while most others are just either ♥♥♥holes, or idiots who believe they're entitled to have whatever they want in the game cause they pre purchase.

Now, Data i don't mean any offense to what i'm about to say or at least how i see your way of talking, I'm afraid to say you're in a business at the moment, you MUST act professorial, This is a job for you, not a hobby, not a side thing, an actual job just like any other, and you're the boss/head of the company, while i can understand your annoyance, and well aggressives defending of your own product and such, but it is a VERY bad idea to act in that way, not only does it show immaturtiy, it will put a lot of people off the game, who would be browsing the forums and seeing you acting like that. i may not be explaining it very well, but just picture it this way.

if you go to a restaurant, and you pay money for a meal, and the food turn up, maybe slightly bland, not what you expected or been told, you then went to complain to the owner, or chef, and the chef or owner react how you acted, saying No it fine it perfect it not finished product i can change it any time there be changes or etc to it. but saying it in a aggressived and honestly, Childish way, Would you go back to that place? i Highly doubt it.

Again, this is a job for you, you're in a company, act like you're part of a company or head of it, not like a child. i don't mean this to be a insult or anything it just how i see how you're acting.

I personally feel the game is quite good, buggy, unfinished slightly, but it is still good, and i enjoy it. but just cause I and a lot of other people think the same, Doesn't change the fact what the negative sayings are as well. You may say Itnot finished or compleat but 1.0, means base version, it means to me, it is completed to some part, and that the current price of £15, or whatever price it is ( I haven't checked in a long time) that the game will come with all the content you promised it will at finished.

Now sadly i don't feel that is the case, just like Gotcha said, if this was Build## instead of VERSION 1.0 (meaning Out of beta, meaning it's compleated to a certian standard and you can choose to stop or carry on, No matter what, and that all the promises from alpha, and beta are in). we would be fine.

Now a suggest that could servaly lessen these type of comments is Listen to these Negative comments.. Don't ignore them as pure hate against you or the game, cause they're not. like you said there a reason why we're so fondly arguing or having a fuss over this, cause we do love the game, and we hate to see it turn crap.
I have many hours of fun on this game, and i hate to see it change too much or feel far too unfinished.

My personal suggestions to improve the game for everyone, would be like what Gotcha and the other say, add a option for Friendly fire, re-add the missions. maybe add a actual campaign and story instead of a sandboxy emptiness with a very, VERY shallow story. Add some unique elements to Metagame, maybe have a "boss" for each AI army, for their last brain, maybe have random Gamemodes in the metagame, Maybe instead of just invading and take over a base, why not have minor missions, Like stealing data chips from bases, which give you information on all Controlled places, (reveal their base layout and units) how much money and brains and their next possable tactic or place they will attack for the next turn. Or have special levels like the zombie cave mission within the metagame.

I love when people a decade my junior call me childish and try to school me on professional conduct ! If being defensive and touchy at personal attacks on my character is "childish", then yeah I guess I am a toddler trapped in a 30 year-old body...

Thanks guys for the advice and concern, but I enjoy wielding the double-edged sword of being a truly independent developer:

One one hand, I can say and do whatever I damn please, and I have no-one to answer to. Nope, not even my old customers. You paid for a copy of the game at its current state when you bought it - not for me to be nice to you (although I do try) or to mold my project to your many diverging/conflicting preferences and ideas. Sorry to say, but to hire me or anyone else to make a game to your liking would cost a heck of a lot more than ~$20 total.

On the other hand, if a prospective costumer browses the forums and is turned off by how I choose to communicate, then I say GOOD RIDDANCE. I sincerely don't want that person as a customer, and I can live without his/her money - especially if it comes with strings of false entitlement and a lifetime of trolling attached. If that makes me the soup nazi (http://youtu.be/uVqBzP0xdKk) of indie devs, then so be it.

--------

Regarding friendly fire/collisions: it is a prime example of something that seems so simple and easy ("just add an option!"), but is deceptively tricky to implement right. I don't have the energy right now to describe in-depth the many intricacies of how it effects both the physics and gameplay, but for one thing, realize that the AI alone has to act completely differently if that switch is flipped one way or the other. For example, if it's on, the actors have to know when someone else on their team is blocking their way and have to then choose whether to wait for them to move, to jump over them, to navigate around them, or to simply kill the blocker so that they can proceed... that is a LOT of extra logic to implement, test, and maintain.

The same kind of deep implications go for aiming, shooting, dropship landings etc etc etc ad nauseum. To support the option of toggling humanoid-actor-and-particles-they-fire-of-same-team-collisions (aka "friendly fire") off, we would have to add an immense amount of extra complexity to the AI logic alone, which is already crazy complex (see for yourself; the entire tactical AI code is fully open source in the Lua scripts that ship with the game). And that's only AI! There's big implications to many other aspects of the gameplay and its design, which can't just easily be switched on and off with a single flag. As you've noticed, the game plays quite differently with the change to collision rules we made.

Some will like it.. some will not. I, the designer, think the game plays a lot better the way it works now, and that's why we went with this change. Random FF accidents and pileups are worth a chuckle, but they do kill the fun for me when they constantly get in the way of executing my tactical plans during a game session. Of course, there are other undesirable effects like pits of dozens of AI actors and other issues already mentioned. As always, we'll try to deal with them in the most elegant way we can, and in due course.

--------

Please don't get me wrong: Suggestions and constructive criticism is ALWAYS welcome and encouraged! I love hearing feedback when it is presented in a genuine spirit of what would be best for the game, and also in a thoughtful and respectful manner. Being polite about it only increases your chances of me listening to you. Being rude, attacking my character, and assuming that I'm toiling away for years only to intentionally disappoint you will result in annoying me and making me less likely to peruse the forums and engage with you guys.

I'm not saying that to make you feel sad or bad for me, I'm saying it as a matter of simple cause-and-effect: The more constructive and positive my experience is when I come in here, the more frequently I will want to do just that. If all I find is shitty attacks and rude outrage, then I hope it's pretty obvious that I'd do less of it.. because I truly have the luxury of ignoring you.

Well, good job not giving two shits about people that don't agree with your ideas for a game that you make on your own time Data.
Definitely embodying the true spirit of indie development(freedom for the developer) I suppose, not sure if for better or for worse but you're definitely doing it, and I feel inclined to respect you for it.


Now, on the topic of "money giving people a say" I do find it funny how people have that perception with indie developers but not corporate game developers, it's kinda an odd situation that seems to have developed.
I don't have any problem with people expecting some input power in return for their money I suppose, I do have a problem with the fact that this only seems to exist in the situation where the developer is a single person or a small group working free of publishers and corporate groups.

(In other words people buy a corporate game and just happily accept everything that isn't to their exact specifications despite paying nearly 3 times as much as they did for Cortex Command)
Some people have given quite good criticism in this thread, some have... not, and either way be happy that the game isn't "done" yet so it will likely see some of that advice of yours implemented.

I get it, tis human nature to accept the good experiences and avoid the bad, although I have a slight issue with the tone of what you are saying.

It is my opinion however unpopular it may be that Games, are like any other industry. That is, its consumer driven, at the moment the model is that games have their own monopolies on themselves, like any other product. To play CC you have to buy CC.
Because of this, people have to make an informed decision on the games they buy. Gamer entitlement is NOT an unnatural or even bad thing. Its how we've been trained as consumers in a modern world. I choose not to buy games from EA ever again, and to not trust people like IGN. That's because I've become aware of their business practices. I understand it might cause you much less work and stress to just forget about your customers and not come back here. Then again that wouldn't be a very smart business practice, your customers make you your money. Which is what making games is really about. Even though I don't discount the very likely happiness in making something people enjoy. Its just not smart to invite your fans to alienate from you, that's all.

Whilst this is true, he's quite clearly stated that he doesn't give a ♥♥♥♥ about what other people think about it, as this is a personal hobby.