I take it Team 17 are ignoring this forum now and concentrating on newer games?

[NinjaMonk]

Still no word on what the hell's going on with the broken Mahattan theme, and there's a bunch of bugs in online play that could do with sorting. But it looks like Team 17 are now completly ignoring the game and the people who are playing it and have moved onto other projects.

After this rather cack experience I won't be rushing to buy future Team 17 games, talk about sh*tting on your loyal fanbase...

[robowurmz]

Well, since nobody has TOLD them what these alleged "bugs" are, do you really think they can do anything about it?

Stop whinging and tell them about the bugs if you want them fixed.

[Haoshiro]

It does seem like they are... i've never been able to even play on the Manhattan theme, and they know plenty of people who bought it can't.

I am REALLY disappointed in Team17 and will think twice before ever buying their other products if they can't even properly support the titles they have - new ones none the less!

Not even a peep from them in months, even from Spadge, who has definitely posted in other forums.

We have an unbalanced rank game that not only has stupid weapon bugs, but crippled additional content! I stopped playing when i couldn't use the Manhattan theme and was promised an update, and then the "Thin Airstrike" bug just kept me waiting for an update.

[NinjaMonk]

Well, since nobody has TOLD them what these alleged "bugs" are, do you really think they can do anything about it?

Stop whinging and tell them about the bugs if you want them fixed.

So the umpteen topics talking about different bugs in the game aren't enough?

Personally I'm more bothered the fact I've paid for content and not received it, and over 2 months on from being released we haven't heard a peep from them about whether it's gonna be fixed or we're gonna be refunded.

We've had a topic going in the forum ever since the content was released and turned out to be broken, but so far Team 17 haven't said a word other than Spadge saying you'd hear in the next few weeks about a fix or refund....that was before E3 he said that and we're still yet to hear anything. I even e-mailed them over a month ago and haven't heard a thing.

Get your facts right and don't try to make out like what I'm saying is unfounded, I'm really not the sort of person to b*tch about stuff just for the sake of b*tching. The way Team 17 have treated this game and its fans who've bought the game has been nothing short of garbage.

[imhome24]

Cheers to that NinjaMonk

[Spadge]

It does seem like they are... i've never been able to even play on the Manhattan theme, and they know plenty of people who bought it can't.

I am REALLY disappointed in Team17 and will think twice before ever buying their other products if they can't even properly support the titles they have - new ones none the less!

Not even a peep from them in months, even from Spadge, who has definitely posted in other forums.

We have an unbalanced rank game that not only has stupid weapon bugs, but crippled additional content! I stopped playing when i couldn't use the Manhattan theme and was promised an update, and then the "Thin Airstrike" bug just kept me waiting for an update.

The error was at MS's end and we're awaiting a fix still. I've chased this again.

[Spadge]

The way Team 17 have treated this game and its fans who've bought the game has been nothing short of garbage.

I totally refute this comment. We've attempted to give as much content as we could with the game, within the boundaries of what we were allowed to and how we could price it. The unfortunate error with the landscape is not T17's fault and whilst we are trying to get this sorted, unfortunately it appears to be way down the priority.

You're short to the tune of $1-2 or something (the points for the landscape) we know that and we're on with it. But shouting like you've been had for $50 or something is a bit remiss. Our people don't control Microsoft's system.

We're aware of a few *very minor* issues with the game, but for the vast majority of players these are not even noticeable in general play and most people are highly satisfied with their $10/£6 investment in terms of entertainment value.

[Haoshiro]

Problem is that things like being able to call down an air strike in the middle of the screen and use multiple weapons on a single turn really make people lose faith in the solidity of the game itself.

Errors like that speak of a bigger problem, and just make players feel like their skill won't determine their victory, but rather, getting lucky or cheating.

I'll still play it casually when friends are over, but competitively a game that I was playing for HOURS a day became a complete let down when the best way to win is actually abusing game flaws.

Regardless of price, something flawed is still flawed. I bought the game because I enjoy Worms and more specifically, I enjoy playing games competitively and the rankings and leaderboards were a big part of the fun for me. When that is ruined for me, the value of the game is greatly diminished - $10 or $50, doesn't matter.

And I'm not just trying to be mean or insulting, I've spent plenty of time in these forums defending the game when others have gone on flame frenzies! ;)

[Plasma]

Problem is that things like being able to call down an air strike in the middle of the screen and use multiple weapons on a single turn really make people lose faith in the solidity of the game itself.

Errors like that speak of a bigger problem, and just make players feel like their skill won't determine their victory, but rather, getting lucky or cheating.

I'll still play it casually when friends are over, but competitively a game that I was playing for HOURS a day became a complete let down when the best way to win is actually abusing game flaws.

Regardless of price, something flawed is still flawed. I bought the game because I enjoy Worms and more specifically, I enjoy playing games competitively and the rankings and leaderboards were a big part of the fun for me. When that is ruined for me, the value of the game is greatly diminished - $10 or $50, doesn't matter.

And I'm not just trying to be mean or insulting, I've spent plenty of time in these forums defending the game when others have gone on flame frenzies! ;)
Unfortunately, bugs are bound to occur in any game, and Team17 just don't have the budget to spend enough time finding and fixing all the bugs for such a small game. That's just the way things are, really.
I'd also advise you to quit on any match that has another person cheating. It might be the most sportsmanship thing to do, but it is fair.

[parsley]

Random thoughts:

Everything is flawed. Perfection is not an option in this universe.

This is not to say that every imperfection is acceptable, but that one must accept that errors can and do happen.

No company has the finances to spend, "enough," time debugging: the definition of, "enough," is predicate upon, "no (serious?) bugs found." Every bug, however minor in the whole problem space, is serious to the user experiencing it.

But... both Team 17 and the publisher of the game expend *vast* resources trying to ensure that the game is correct, but no organisation on earth can compete with the sheer number of users testing once it's released: everything from not reading the manual to maliciously attempting to subvert the game mechanic for their own benefit to simply not understanding how a system is meant to work. (Vide: Microsoft, Apple, Linux, etc.)

[deltia]

So, not our fault, not in our control, but we're still trying to solve it.

Exactly how annoyed should you be?

[NinjaMonk]

You're short to the tune of $1-2 or something (the points for the landscape) we know that and we're on with it. But shouting like you've been had for $50 or something is a bit remiss. Our people don't control Microsoft's system.



That's all i was asking for you to say. Just a simple we're looking to rectify the situation with Microsoft, be patient would have sufficed. There's been a few of us asking about what was going on for a couple of months now and it just seemed like we were being completly ignored.

Thanks for the reply anyway.

[Spadge]

Problem is that things like being able to call down an air strike in the middle of the screen and use multiple weapons on a single turn really make people lose faith in the solidity of the game itself.

Errors like that speak of a bigger problem, and just make players feel like their skill won't determine their victory, but rather, getting lucky or cheating.

I'll still play it casually when friends are over, but competitively a game that I was playing for HOURS a day became a complete let down when the best way to win is actually abusing game flaws.

Regardless of price, something flawed is still flawed. I bought the game because I enjoy Worms and more specifically, I enjoy playing games competitively and the rankings and leaderboards were a big part of the fun for me. When that is ruined for me, the value of the game is greatly diminished - $10 or $50, doesn't matter.

And I'm not just trying to be mean or insulting, I've spent plenty of time in these forums defending the game when others have gone on flame frenzies! ;)

Thats fair comment, non-abusive and quite reasoned. I think the big thing here is the word competitive and how you interpret that. Obviously, for a $10 social game, ourselves and Microsoft spent a great deal of time ensuring it was as bug free as we could (some 6-7 months) but as Parsely suggests, we can't replicate the instances when 100's of thousands play it and more importantly, when a thousand or so play it *competitively* (ie. with prejudice for the result). I'm not sure anyone thought this would get into seriously competitive territory. It's why Worms World Party had *no* rankings (I personally swore I wouldn't do it again after Armageddon) and WHY it was called Party. Fun, you know.

We'll take the criticisms on board, but with consoles like the XBLA we just can't spend the 8-12 months beta'ing a service for a $10 game. MS won't (can't?) do it and neither can we. Worms has been pretty successful on XBLA but part of me feels we shouldn't have had open rankings and only rankings between friends. Perhaps that would encourage sporting play, because the only thing flawed in any bad online experience I've had is the other players.

[Spadge]

Unfortunately, bugs are bound to occur in any game, and Team17 just don't have the budget to spend enough time finding and fixing all the bugs for such a small game. That's just the way things are, really.
I'd also advise you to quit on any match that has another person cheating. It might be the most sportsmanship thing to do, but it is fair.

We did spend a LONG time btw :)

Quit/finish and REPORT a cheat, just do it. If they moan, tell people here.

Unfortunately, it's just human nature - a large percentage are ********s.

[velocity]

Haven't read every comment on this page but just wanted to say that this is the best value for money I've spent on a game. I regularly sit down with 4 people and play for 2hrs. Its rare you get this in a game so THANK YOU TEAM 17. Those whingers don't know what they've got.

[MtlAngelus]

You're short to the tune of $1-2 or something (the points for the landscape) we know that and we're on with it. But shouting like you've been had for $50 or something is a bit remiss.

It is my experience that the people that complain for very small ammounts of money do not take kindly to being told this. :p
They have some rather bizarre principle that can go as far as to them preferring to ruin their credit history over paying a few cents. :p

[NinjaMonk]

*sigh*

It wasn't the amount of money, it was more the principle of the thing. We paid for the content on marketplace and received nothing 2 months on and had been given absoloutly no info on what was going on at all.

Maybe I overreacted with my initial post, but as it's shown after 2 months of silence at least we've got a response finally.

[Metal Alex]

*sigh*

It wasn't the amount of money, it was more the principle of the thing. We paid for the content on marketplace and received nothing 2 months on and had been given absoloutly no info on what was going on at all.

Maybe I overreacted with my initial post, but as it's shown after 2 months of silence at least we've got a response finally.

how do you expect a response if you say nothing until now?

[NinjaMonk]

:rolleyes:

Try reading the thread before you comment first. As I stated earlier, there's been a thread going since the content was released with many people (including myself) enquiring about what's going on. I'm not sitting here expecting Team 17 to somehow telepathically pick up my thoughts and reply to them.

Anyway, I've got a response from Spadge already which is all I was looking for, so we might as well let this drop...

[Haoshiro]

Thats fair comment, non-abusive and quite reasoned. I think the big thing here is the word competitive and how you interpret that. Obviously, for a $10 social game, ourselves and Microsoft spent a great deal of time ensuring it was as bug free as we could (some 6-7 months) but as Parsely suggests, we can't replicate the instances when 100's of thousands play it and more importantly, when a thousand or so play it *competitively* (ie. with prejudice for the result). I'm not sure anyone thought this would get into seriously competitive territory. It's why Worms World Party had *no* rankings (I personally swore I wouldn't do it again after Armageddon) and WHY it was called Party. Fun, you know.

We'll take the criticisms on board, but with consoles like the XBLA we just can't spend the 8-12 months beta'ing a service for a $10 game. MS won't (can't?) do it and neither can we. Worms has been pretty successful on XBLA but part of me feels we shouldn't have had open rankings and only rankings between friends. Perhaps that would encourage sporting play, because the only thing flawed in any bad online experience I've had is the other players.

Thanks for the response, much appreciated.

I wouldn't agree you should have only done closed rankings. While a lot of the worms games do tend to be too imbalanced to offer a real competitive experience, especially a simplified version like Worms XBLA is pretty much perfect for it.

All the really great games over history have been competitive on a skill level, whether that's looking at sports, or classics like Othello and Chess. Q3A was successful on almost its competitive nature alone.

Personally, what I would suggest your team take away from this experience is actually that there is a huge potential for Worms as a competitive game. In fact that's one of the great strengths of Worms: that it can be played casually just for fun and be a blast, and it can also be played competitively to great effect. You can't buy that kind of game, it just happens and you guys own it!

I think you could evolve Worms XBLA into something like "Worms: Championship Edition" with expanded competitive options and rankings, and you'd have a serious winner on your hands.

Yes, there is less room for error in such a game, and a more critical audience, but it also breeds an extremely loyal fanbase that will play for decades.

You yourself have talked about what a great profit you made on this XBLA game. Keeping it well supported and refined will only make it that much more profitable, and continue to attract even more players - the serious and casual alike.

I think MS downplays XBLA as "casual" and sells it like that, but most people I know that even PAY for Live Gold do it because they enjoy competing.

[Metal Alex]

Try reading the thread before you comment first.

:rolleyes:

That thread is from the begining of the problem. If you want to ask why do they take long, it has to have some time passed (obviously), or else the subject will be forgotten.

I'm just saying that coming and telling they ignore people when you actually never did read any of the things here on detail, because T17 are the ones who ignore the least their fans... The thing was simply forgotten, with all the new games here.

[slysy]

Thats fair comment, non-abusive and quite reasoned. I think the big thing here is the word competitive and how you interpret that. Obviously, for a $10 social game, ourselves and Microsoft spent a great deal of time ensuring it was as bug free as we could (some 6-7 months) but as Parsely suggests, we can't replicate the instances when 100's of thousands play it and more importantly, when a thousand or so play it *competitively* (ie. with prejudice for the result). I'm not sure anyone thought this would get into seriously competitive territory. It's why Worms World Party had *no* rankings (I personally swore I wouldn't do it again after Armageddon) and WHY it was called Party. Fun, you know.

We'll take the criticisms on board, but with consoles like the XBLA we just can't spend the 8-12 months beta'ing a service for a $10 game. MS won't (can't?) do it and neither can we. Worms has been pretty successful on XBLA but part of me feels we shouldn't have had open rankings and only rankings between friends. Perhaps that would encourage sporting play, because the only thing flawed in any bad online experience I've had is the other players.

I understand that you can't catch all bugs before release. But you could fix them via a title update. Are you considering this? I'm sure a lot of worms fans would really appreciate it :)

[Metal Alex]

I understand that you can't catch all bugs before release. But you could fix them via a title update. Are you considering this? I'm sure a lot of worms fans would really appreciate it :)

Microsoft needs to give their approval to do the patch, so... blame them.

[ruffle]

love mystery, but whatever happens happens.