Kidneykid95
Senior List
- May 10, 2023
- 207
- 214
- AFL Club
- Port Adelaide
Multiplat AFL 23 - Part 2: Pro Team, more like No Team
- Thread starter Dannnnnnnnnn
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Jun 9, 2014
- 1,280
- 2,639
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Still amazes me how the ‘longest’ wait time for approval was generally about a month but it’s taking twice as long for AFL of all games (apparently)
Come on mate, we all know it’s because the irrefutable industry data suggests the longer this game is dragged out, ultimately the better its legacy will become
Shinboner Supremacy
Rookie
- May 8, 2024
- 49
- 70
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Still amazes me how the ‘longest’ wait time for approval was generally about a month but it’s taking twice as long for AFL of all games (apparently)
They are a ****ing joke of a company lol
Nicho50
Club Legend
- Apr 20, 2022
- 2,986
- 3,358
- AFL Club
- Richmond
Might be a Christmas eve present for you AFL players at best!
Isn’t that what they use their forum for? I think I’ve seen them have posts explaining the patch notes.
Thank goodness, good to know they've at least taken that bit of feedback on. I stand corrected.
One common thing that I hope is altered. The AI have been prone to getting on a good run, that I can't stop.... until the AI shoots itself in the foot by kicking the ball out on the full in their forward line.
Occasionally they'll also over power the kick at the kick in, thus I have an easy shot at goal from the forward pocket.
Occasionally they'll also over power the kick at the kick in, thus I have an easy shot at goal from the forward pocket.
SugarShane
C12 H22 O11
As we approach 6 weeks post Pro Team launch I still find myself wondering how it gets to this point.
I'll happily accept that it's further delayed because they added improvements which reset the timeline. But the question is why?
If they indeed originally submitted with enough time to make release date (which we're assuming now is 6+ weeks early), why would you voluntarily reset that timeline when it's clearly the longest wait?
If the original version was release worthy, why not just let it continue to get approval, which was surely some weeks along by that point, and then push through the improvements at a later date? Considering it'd then be a minor update rather than a whole mode, surely that update gets through quicker than resetting the whole thing? It's easy enough to let the original one go out and just put out a thing saying "Improvements to these features will be coming".
Or, and this one is so simple it's crazy, let people know when the resubmission happened. We have to assume that the resubmission was done prior to May 27 (if it wasn't that's another level of crazy), and that the plan to submit an improved version didn't come out of the blue, so why weren't people made aware at that point rather than leaving the delay announcement until late the night before. "In order to release the best possible mode, we have decided to re-submit with a range of improvements. Unfortunately this will delay the release."
At this point the decision making rivals the Adelaide Crows administration. You just keep watching from afar like... what? Why? How? And again, why?
I'll happily accept that it's further delayed because they added improvements which reset the timeline. But the question is why?
If they indeed originally submitted with enough time to make release date (which we're assuming now is 6+ weeks early), why would you voluntarily reset that timeline when it's clearly the longest wait?
If the original version was release worthy, why not just let it continue to get approval, which was surely some weeks along by that point, and then push through the improvements at a later date? Considering it'd then be a minor update rather than a whole mode, surely that update gets through quicker than resetting the whole thing? It's easy enough to let the original one go out and just put out a thing saying "Improvements to these features will be coming".
Or, and this one is so simple it's crazy, let people know when the resubmission happened. We have to assume that the resubmission was done prior to May 27 (if it wasn't that's another level of crazy), and that the plan to submit an improved version didn't come out of the blue, so why weren't people made aware at that point rather than leaving the delay announcement until late the night before. "In order to release the best possible mode, we have decided to re-submit with a range of improvements. Unfortunately this will delay the release."
At this point the decision making rivals the Adelaide Crows administration. You just keep watching from afar like... what? Why? How? And again, why?
Agree that it’d be nice to know if there was a resubmission, or any further updates .
From what JNT said on the BA Forums, they’ve left most of the separate gameplay improvements out of the submission process for this.
It sounded like what was initially submitted was Pro Team plus a few minor fixes, and that’s the version that’s taking ages to get approval for.
If they failed approvals, and had to resubmit, by what was said, they would just submit that version plus whatever fix is needed for what the platform holders found (like a crash bug, or payment exploit), leaving any other features worked on out of the whole process. (He said they were coming later).
Now the turnaround times could be anything.
Could be :-
Submit, 2 days response, 1 day bug fix, resubmit (3 day turnaround). Repeat 15 times.
OR
Submit, 2 week response, 5 day bug fix, resubmit (19 day turnaround). Repeat 2 times.
Dunno how extensive the platform holder testing is (could be large for an added mode with microtransactions?), or how long it takes for Big Ant to find and fix any bugs reported.
But yeah, would be nice to know more information.
Similar threads
- Locked
