Features Vs. Aesthetics

[tankninja1]

>implying you won't just do whatever you want anyway regardless of the community opinion

[obpmgmua]

>implying you won't just do whatever you want anyway regardless of the community opinion

Sad but true. This is the same elitist attitude I've come to expect from the squad devs but I never expected it from the pr devs. How times have changed.

[ZektorSK]

In Rome Total War, you have a choice to prepare for war, or just rush into it with little units. Then it depends really on your luck and skill... The same example could be these updates. You can either risk it with BETA, and hope it won't be broken so much, or polish it and then release it. I think it should be polished first, because from small problem you can make a big one.

[QuickLoad]

In Rome Total War, you have a choice to prepare for war, or just rush into it with little units. Then it depends really on your luck and skill... The same example could be these updates. You can either risk it with BETA, and hope it won't be broken so much, or polish it and then release it. I think it should be polished first, because from small problem you can make a big one.

BETA is just there to play test, make more changes, and then polish.
not exactly risking it, since it gives crucial information to the map creator on what he or she should be doing and fixing.

[LimitJK]

features, though it risks that details get delayed to the point were their implementation never happens.

aesthetics should be considered based on their impact on gameplay.
example 1: the cows door gunner view is a little odd in a certain angle but its one off the least important things to fix i can think off.
example 2: missaligned sights should be a TOP priority.

btw in the same vein the ww2 beta more than a year ago was close to perfect, imo you could have pushed it out already then, adding new maps and stuff on the go.

[sgt.maze2]

do ballistics and deviation count as a features or aesthetics?

[Captain Fubar]

THIS IS TWO YEARS OLD WHY ARE PEOPLE ON THIS